Solar projects taking off in Imperial and Kern counties — the math of PPAs

Southern California Edison may have backed out of its agreement to put a 10-megawatt solar plant at College of the Desert’s West Valley campus in Palm Springs, but it’s still signing contracts with other solar developers to buy electricity from their projects.

8minuteenergy Renewables, a Folsom-based solar developer, announced Monday it has signed a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Edison for its 20-megawatt Redcrest solar project in Kern County. 8minute is partnering with saferay, a German solar developer with U.S. offices in Palo Alto, for the project. (Obviously, lower case names are in vogue among solar developers these days. Somewhere e.e. cummings is smiling.)

The contract was negotiated through Edison’s Renewable Auction Mechanism, the small-solar program the utility wants to use  instead of developing small community-based projects, such as the cancelled COD solar plant. The contract will have to get final approval from the California Public Utilities Commission.

/images/solar.jpg

According to the 8minute announcement:

The Redcrest Solar Farm project is a utility-scale solar generation facility sited on 160 acres of low-productivity farmland.  Construction is projected to begin in 2014, with the site expected to be operational and delivering renewable energy by mid-2015.  This clean solar generation plant will displace the equivalent of approximately 54,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, which is equal to the amount that roughly 2.2 million trees would displace annually.

 It will also generate 50 construction jobs.

Meanwhile, in Imperial County, First Solar of Tempe, the original developer of Desert Sunlight, has acquired the 150-megawatt Solar Gen 2 project. The project has a 25-year power purchase agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric.

The numbers on this one are, predictably, larger than Redcrest.

The photovoltaic (PV) solar plant will generate enough electricity to power more than 60,000 average California homes, displacing more than 115,000 metric tons of CO2 per year (the equivalent of taking 22,000 cars off the road) and saving 93,000 metric tons of water per year.

When the project begins construction, sometime this year, it will create 800 jobs, company officials said.

First Solar developed the 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight project, located near Desert Center and now owned by NextEra Energy of Florida and GE. The only other project it has in development at present is the 300-megawatt Stateline plant in San Bernardino, which has a power purchase agreement with Edison.

Why does Edison seemingly have no problem with buying power from other developers but remain so reluctant to do even small projects of its own? The obvious answer is profits. Developing solar still carries high front-end costs.

But once completed, solar farms produce their energy at hours of the day that correlate with peak customer usage, when the utility can charge customers higher rates, even as the prices they are paying on PPAs continue to fall.

 

 

No nuke for So Cal Edison, at least for now

Southern California Edison’s problem-plagued San Onofre nuclear plant near San Clemente will stay offline through the summer as the utility continues to work on a solution to the plant’s faulty tubes, which carry radioactive water.

When at full operation, the plant provides 19 percent of Edison’s power, according an article on the Los Angeles Times website. In the meantime, a post on the BusinessWeek website says,  Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, which also gets power from the plant, will be paying $2.5 million a month to buy power from two older generating plants that have been brought out of moth balls to make up the shortfall.

Edison officials say the utility should be able to make it through the summer without any power shortages, excepting for extreme circumstances.

The plant has been closed since January, when extraordinary wear on the tubes was discovered.  Before reopening, must pass muster with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has told Edison it must find out exactly what is causing wear and tear on the tubes.

Stressing safety over timelines, Ted Craver, CEO of Edison International, So Cal Edison’s parent company, projected that the earliest the utility might be able to submit a restart plan to the commission is the end of July, and it could then take another month for the NRC to rule on the plan.

The commission has set June 18 for a hearing on the findings from the plant so far.

The question not answered in the articles, or by Edison in a press release sent out Friday, is whether and how much of that extra $2.5 million per month will be passed on to rate payers. 

Meanwhile, my colleague Kate McGinty, who covers public safety, said with daily triple-digit weather, she’s already noticing an uptick in power outages in the valley, although Edison International officials said any outages here are in all likelihood not related to San Onofre.

Either way, batten down your air conditioners, campers, it’s going to be a bumpy summer.

Solar impulses — from roof tops to around the world

One of the challenges of writing about net metering, as I have been doing the last few days, is trying to figure out why the issue has become so fiercely controversial.

On the face of it, the idea behind net metering seems pretty much a matter of common sense. People or businesses or even schools with solar panels on their roofs will not, to varying extents, be using all the power they generate, which can then go back into the grid and be used elsewhere. If you’re feeding power into the grid, you should get some kind of fair and reasonable compensation for it. 

The more power going into the grid from rooftops, the less need the utilities might have for other sources of power – like fossil fuel-burning power plants.

A February 2012 study from UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment also points to additional benefits arising from the local generation of power that is the foundation of rooftop solar and net metering.

“. . . on-site solar generation has substantial benefits for the electric grid. By producing energy on-site, transmission and distribution losses, wear and tear on utility equipment, and vulnerability to fuel cost increases are all reduced.”

Yet, since California passed its first net metering law back in 1995, any advance or expansion of the program has always been a battle against utility opposition. In the first law, for example, the cap on the amount of power the utilities would have to accept from net metering was set at .1 percent.

A bit bewildered by all this, I asked Southern California Edison officials why it seems in principle the company opposed net metering. 

Now, I have to say that usually, the media folks at Edison are straightforward and as helpful as they can be, working for a major private utility; we know each other and have cordial, professional relationships.

But on the net metering issue, I ran into the proverbial brick wall. Questions were either not answered at all or answered with statements so broad and vague as to be virtually meaningless.

Thursday morning, as soon as the California Public Utilities Commission voted on the net metering issue – expanding the program cap and ordering a study of economic impacts – I was on the phone to my contacts at Edison asking for a comment. I joked around, saying, “You knew I was going to call.”

That was around 11-11:30 a.m., and I told them I had a 5 p.m. deadline. It took them all day to send me a five-line statement – at 5:25 p.m. — that did not even mention the main issue of the net metering cap while making only the most general remarks on the need to analyze all the impacts of the program.

From a reporter’s point of view, this is totally bush league behavior. As a major corporation with a large media department, Edison must have known the decision was coming and should have had a press release with some kind of reasonably substantive statement ready to go the minute the vote was taken and a point person ready to handle media calls.

 The Solar Energy Industries Association sent out a statement by email within minutes of the vote, and I was quickly able to contact the group’s West Coast representative on her cell phone.

Clearly something bigger is going on here.

 At this point, it seems germane to point out that of California’s three private utilities, Edison has so far lagged behind the other two – Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric – in the amount of net metered power it is getting onto the grid.

One of Edison’s filings on the net metering issue incuded a chart showing that as of June 30, 2011, the utility had reached 1.06 percent of its 5 percent net metering cap, compared to 2.36 percent for PG&E and 2.2 percent for SDG&E.

My question to Edison about this was one of the ones that went unanswered, along with my request for more recent figures.

I did ask some other solar folks for their thoughts on these figures as well. Most answered off the record, pointing to things like the cultural differences between Northern and Southern California. We have all those tech folks in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area who are generally more environmentally aware and more likely to try out new technology. Same with San Diego.  I don’t know that I completely buy that — particularly in the Coachella Valley where we have Edison’s summer electric bills as a major incentive.

Another possibility might be how long it takes the company to set up net metering accounts. In recent weeks I’ve heard from two local residents who installed solar and had to wait months for Edison to sort out their net metering accounts.

Ed Trost of Palm Springs installed his solar system last summer and, he reported, by September, he still wasn’t on net metering.

“We were able to generate some free electricity and not get credit,” he told me.

My own personal and no doubt way oversimplified theory is that Edison and the other utilities struggle with small rooftop solar because, while publically they must appear supportive,  it’s something they can’t control and it’s cutting into their business. They’re still trying to figure out a way to make money off it and so far, they haven’t.

That said, large utilities have a tendency not to give up and should never be underestimated. They got the power.

* * * * * * * *

And before everyone takes off for Memorial Day, here is something totally cool and inspiring – a solar-powered airplane flying around the world.

A picture of the Solar Impulse. a completely solar-powered plane, from the project's website. Madrid was the first stop on the Swiss plane's round-the-world flight.

Called the Solar Impulse, the plane is the product of a Swiss team led by Bernard Piccard, who made the first around-the-world balloon flight, and Andre Borschberg, an engineer and management expert.

The plane has a wing span of 63.4 meters — 208 feet –  covered in 12,000 solar cells. Its next stop is a solar plant near Rabat in Morocco. Needless to say, you can follow the trip online, either on the Solar Impulse website or Twitter feed.

The team’s statement of principles is worth reading.

The ultimate goal of Solar Impulse, beyond the adventure of flying a solar airplane round the world, or rather thanks to it, is to express a humanistic vision which devotes a major place to the pioneering spirit, to the questing mind and to innovation in our everyday lives. For this purpose, we want to bring together and give a voice to all those who share our beliefs –  that the survival of our planet depends on sustainable development; that nature can be protected without fanatical environmentalism; that individual initiative cannot be dissociated from social responsibility; that ethical values and respect for the environment must prevail in the worlds of commerce, finance and politics;  that respect is not an outdated moral precept; and that spirituality does not necessarily entail dogmatism.

God speed, ladies and gentlemen. Have a sustainable weekend.

 

 

Smart meter update: The PG&E opt-out plan

In what may likely be seen as a precedent-setting decision, the California Public Utilities Commission last week issued a ruling on Pacific Gas & Electric’s smart meter opt-out plan.

In a nut shell, PG&E customers who don’t want a wireless meter will have two options. If they already have a new meter installed, they will be able to request that wireless functions be turned off. If they have delayed smart meter installation, they will now have to have a new meter installed, also with no wireless functions.

The PUC chose the wireless-off option because it is the least expensive of the alternatives available for customers who didn’t want the wireless meters.  According to a rundown of the decision on GreenTech Media, turning off the wireless will only cost PG&E about $402 per meter versus $613 per meter for meters that are hardwired.

The other key provisions of the ruling come on cost to customers and the new pricing plans and consumer information that were billed as the main benefits of the wireless meters.

Going wireless will cost customers $90 upfront plus $15 per month. That’s considerably less than the fees PG&E originally proposed — either $270 upfront and $14 per month or $135 upfront and $20 per month.

Low-income or elderly customers who are on special rate plans would have the upfront fee waived and pay only $5 per month for a wireless-off meter.

Without the wireless functions, PG&E won’t be able to track hourly electric use of some customers, which in turn means it may not be able to charge them time-of-use rates and other pricing options aimed at reducing power use at peak times. 

To provide the utility with some flexibility here, the ruling says by Jan. 1, 2014, PG&E will have to have meters that allow it to collect at least some of that hourly use data manually — so it looks like some meter readers will have to stay on the job.

PG&E has estimated that 148,500 customers will ask for the opt-out. But the GreenTech Media report noted that an opt-out plan in Maine, with upfront fees of $20-$40 and monthly charges of $10-$12.50, drew 10 percent fewer customers than had been expected. 

The PUC has yet to rule on opt-out plans for Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas & Electric, but this ruling might be a template for them.

The PG&E ruling still has to go through a public comment period, ending Dec. 12.  To submit a comment, you can contact the Public Advisor’s office.

A final vote on the opt-out plan is tentatively scheduled for the commission’s Jan. 12 meeting.