Southern’s Georgia Power Advanced Solar Initiative (“GPASI”)
Southern’s Georgia Power Advanced Solar Initiative (“GPASI”) has been making headway among the renewable press with much praise. However, as we all need to recognize the devil is in the detail and depending on your perspective; this may or may not achieve what you desire. I know many people do not have time and we depend on our journalists. However, every now and then, one needs to check on the thoroughness of the journalists. I went ahead and downloaded the complete filing.
Southern has done a fine job getting ahead of the mandate. In fact, this is what most utilities should strive for. In essence they have pre-crafted the legislation in a more intelligent way than any lobbyist or legislature could have done. The have covered the basics of dealing with cost, the associated fees of solar, taken care of performance concerns, and made it clear how they plan to recover their cost.
Key statements: “We do not intend to build or own solar facilities as part of this GPASI program…. Georgia Power will earn no profit or return.”
These are noble statements from the local utility. In order to make such bold statement, they must be anticipating the volumes not to be worthy of a return. However it is a large enough cost threat that it would be nice to guarantee cost recovery. In this area Georgia Power did a great job outlining the cost and hassle of solar power and making sure the responsibility and the cost will be borne by the developers.
Cost Capping
Key statement: “Each RFP will require bidders to bid a “not to exceed” price of 12 cents per kWh, the calculation of which will include a capacity benefit that will be benchmarked to current market pricing obtained in the 2015 RFP in Docket No. 34218” “Under the Small-Scale option, purchases will be for a fixed energy amount at a levelized solar price of 13 cents per kWh for a term of twenty years”.
They have set a price cap for the solar. I believe this figure will be hard to meet. By getting this level approved ahead of time, they won’t have to deal with projects being forced to reduce their cost structures.
Ancillary Cost (Headaches of solar)
Key statements: “…bidders will be required to pay a fee of $0.25 per kW bid to participate in the RFP to help defray the program costs.” “Bidders will be responsible for the cost of all metering to be installed, owned, operated and maintained by Georgia Power and would be required to provide performance security”. “Costs to interconnect will be provided to the bidder and are the responsibility of the bidder.” “Each bidder is required to make separate applications to interconnect to the distribution or transmission system. Participation in the RFP does not initiate interconnection activities.” “Georgia Power will make it clear to every bidder that the bidder is solely responsible for ensuring the technical, regulatory and financial viability of its project.” “The Company will install metering for the Participant’s solar facility. The Participant will enter into a contract with the Company to cover all incremental metering (e.g. poly-phase meters, trans sockets, dual-gang sockets, etc.) and interconnection costs. Additionally, the Participant must pay the monthly metering cost for the facility.”
All the statements above deal with the headaches of a solar mandate. They are attempting to stop the developers using a shotgun approach by charging a fee to participate in the RFP. All the nuisance costs of installation will all be on the developer including the meters and interconnections.
Performance
Key statement: “If Participant’s monthly capacity factor is less than 10 percent, Participant must make necessary adjustments or repairs to improve the monthly capacity factor to greater than or equal to 10 percent. If the monthly capacity factor for any four months within a calendar year is less than 10 percent, the Company has the right to terminate this agreement.
“If the capacity factor is greater than 20 percent, the Company has the right to inspect the facility to ensure its applicability. Due to the limitations of current solar photovoltaic technology, if the monthly capacity factor is greater than 20 percent in a second month, the Company may ask the Participant to explain the greater than 20 percent capacity factor. If the reason does not justify a capacity factor greater than 20 percent in the Company’s reasonable discretion, the Company may consider the resource to be in default and has the right to terminate the agreement.”
Solar performance and any lack of consistency is now the responsibility of the developer. They are essentially forcing them to perform the needed maintenance (window washing). In addition they are dealing, ahead of time, with some of the shady business practices like running other generation through the meter.
Recovery Method
Key statement: “Payments for energy purchased through this program are a recoverable fuel cost of the Company”.
This makes it clear how they plan to recover the cost. It will be on the fuel cost component. This is a very crucial point because most of the plans developed by legislature do not make that part clear.
In the end, I expect everything outlined would reduce the amount of solar that would have been done if it was legislated. Now that ALL the cost and fees of connecting and operating solar is to be paid by the developers, it will be hard to produce significant volumes within their price caps. So for those pro-renewables folks, I suspect they might not be too happy. For the utilities around the country, this is a great starting point to make sure all the headaches around solar are not yours and there is a clear cut method of recovering your cost.
I have many years of experience in evaluating various technologies, planning, and developing an integrated resource plan. If you are looking for some insights or additional points of view into future technologies or power markets, please consider contacting All Energy Consulting.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
Solar Tax Breaks – if it were only that simple
Solar tax breaks is the big talk in some parts of the country. A new report published by the US Partnership for Renewable Finance (US PREF), a program of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), highlights, the extent of campaigning to promote subsidization of the industry. The analysis leaves much room for skepticism and criticism. Before I delve into the depths and details of the report, it would be easy and clean to simply say giving a tax break promotes more tax revenue – trickle down economics. The basis of their analysis is based on trickle down economics which many have justifiably become distrusting given the economic condition of the US with the significant tax breaks over the past decades. The theory is: in lieu of the tax credit, the company would not exist therefore no tax revenue will come from the company. And the theory goes on to say the on-going tax revenue will make up for the initial loss. You can note I did not have to specify an industry. This logic could apply to about everything. The positives about solar versus other industry is possibly it is the gift that keeps on giving via clean energy. There are certainly externalities that exist beyond the product itself.
However the world/US is not that simple to conclude giving tax breaks pays off – particularly when you are running deficits. In affect a credit to any industry in the time the country is running a deficit is certainly at least valued at the interest cost to society. Currently we are fixing our interest rate through monetary policy so the rate is quite low. Secondly the opportunity cost to produce more debt for future growth has a full range of items e.g. autos, homes, roads, etc… Will someone develop a capital allocation model to identify the top 10 investment that would be best for the economy? Personally I don’t know if solar would be in that list in terms of returns for the next 10 years. In the PREF analysis they do show positive returns (though skeptical on results), but I am sure many other industries would tout the same thing if given the chance. Thirdly, the government policies that encourage certain outcomes are typically design and sold as social just expenses – not requiring full economic principles e.g. welfare, tax on cigarettes, home ownership etc… Perhaps we could categorize solar/renewable policies as a social just expense. It would certainly merit it in terms of cleaner energy and potentially long-term value if something were to happen to fossil fuel supply.
If we were a country without much opportunity for other forms of energy I would see it easily being a top 10 investment. However the US is the land of the bountiful not only in land, but food and energy. We are led to believe we are short on energy. This is not the case. We have chosen to limit the amount of domestic energy use by creating national parks and restricting drilling. These choices are worthwhile choices given the ability to let others pillage their resources at prices which we deem too low to think about pillaging our lands. In addition, because of the abundance and relatively cheap cost of energy, we consume more than we “need”. I am sure if push comes to shove we can consume much less without much change in our happiness. This abundance of energy does put into question the motivation and the desire to advance solar for the benefit for other countries not blessed with our resources. On a global warming basis I certainly can see the value. But as I pointed out in my other articles , society is not ready to plan for the long-term.
In terms of the paper itself, they left out many economic and mathematical concerns. Here are my litanies of concerns: Why no discount rate? At the very least should not be the value of interest? On a nominal basis many investments will payoff in 30 year. Another reason to do it on a real basis is they have energy price escalators all in the realm of inflation. The study basis on generating revenue lies on the premise creating a leasing deal promotes a good tax policy since the leaseholder is seeing taxable revenue. With this logic, the government should promote all types of leasing – why not give tax credits to lease cars. The Excel file shows the assumption that PPA will be signed not only on premium price relative to current market conditions, but the utility would continue to pay additional cost each year via an escalator. Most solar PPA deals I have seen are at fixed cost. Solar does have a fixed cost component (land management, solar cleaning, inverter repair/replace) which will occur over the 30 year period and is missing in their economics.
Let me leave you saying I agree that promotion of solar could produce a long-term value for society. I don’t have all the answers, but I don’t shy from the tough questions. However the article and many people involved in these issues are not talking about all the facts and concerns to make a decision for the best of society for the long haul. Without a complete discussion of the pros and cons, people end up cherry picking information to support their own internal biases which in most cases supports ones self-interest regardless of society value.
I have many years of experience in evaluating various technologies, planning, and developing an integrated resource plan. If you are looking for some insights and or additional points of view into the future technologies and/or power markets please consider contacting All Energy Consulting.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
Wind generation footprint and other issues
Wind generation footprint came to my mind as I drove across Indiana. It was amazing to see these structures. Then it started annoying me as I continued to drive through the farmland, seeing them over and over. Initially, I was thinking it was a unique and impressive structure, but if I had to see that all the time it would not be so impressive. I actually started missing the skyline.
I know one can build a 200MW gas plant in about 10 acres. In order to build the same 200MW for a wind farm you would need 12,000 acres – just about 60 acres per MW. If we assume it was built evenly, it would take almost 19 miles of driving parallel to the wind farm before your eyes could take a break. Whereas the gas plants, you can drive by it in fraction of the time and potentially not even know it.
Then I started to think about the farmers, since most of the blades were on farmland. Did these farmers get properly compensated? Did the farmers get compensated for loss of crop yield due to compaction of the soil as install and maintenance will likely cause long-term compaction? Did they account for their inability to do aerial spraying? I see there are reports of positive aspects of wind. They say they can increase the ambient lower temperature which could lead to greater crop yield.
I am not writing to bash wind generation, but only to point out to many of the proponents of wind that there are some reasonable objections. In addition, as with most things, there are pros and cons. The extent of development can only go so far when the technology does have cons. Too many studies conclude significant renewables can be developed without balancing some of the real issues that will limit renewables. A balance portfolio of generation will likely be the outcome with each area balancing out their level of pros and cons.
At All Energy Consulting we can help you run and model your resource options/plans to balance those pros and cons. We can either offer a third-party assessment or help design and build you a process plan for which you can manage yourself.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
Adaptation will happen as the climate changes
The key sentence with keywords bolded from my previous discussion of climate change is “statistical odd that climate change is real, and that it could have significant impact to society.” I leave room for doubt as many things cannot be modeled. Simple things such as predicting cloud formation is still not understood. Given simple things cannot be understood one could surely extrapolate, perhaps more complicated feedbacks are not incorporated appropriately in many climate models. A recent discovery in the arctic articulates this issue.
The article points out a new massive discovery of phytoplankton in the arctic. In addition they note the following: “…it could explain how the ocean has been absorbing larger quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere than data could verify, the researchers suggest.” This bio-feedback from higher CO2 contents demonstrates how the earth/nature will adapt to changes. There are other bio-feedbacks that have been demonstrated. Scientists have noted that certain plants are becoming more dominant as CO2 content in the atmosphere increases. This would make Darwinian sense in the fact if the environment is changing those creatures/plants that would prefer easier access to CO2 will be more dominant as more CO2 is available in the atmosphere. Duke demonstrated this bio-feedback with poison ivy being the beneficial plant.
These types of bio-feedback are not all captured in the various climate models. There are so many areas we do not fully understand or can comprehend. However on a risk adjusted basis, I will stick with my premise that there is a statistical odd that the models are showing a possibility of unintended consequences of our emissions of CO2. As I concluded in the previous blog, we will likely have to adapt due to societies focus on Carpe Diem.
At All Energy Consulting we can help you view the energy markets through a pragmatic unbiased lens. We hope to offer color to the energy discussion, which should stimulate thought. Please consider us for your energy consulting needs.
Your Energy Consultant,
David K. Bellman
614-356-0484
Climate Change Discussion
Though David Roberts from the Grist once called me a “troll” via twitter because of my perceived different opinions– I don’t mind subscribing to his twitter and viewing his works. Mr. Roberts self-professed in the video below that he is just a blogger. I am: a beginning blogger, but a recognized and an accomplished prognosticator of the commodity markets (1998 crude oil collapse – noted in USA Today among the many other publications), employed for many years on a management team of one of the largest utilities American Electric Power, served on multiple committees from the National Petroleum Council to the National Renewable Energy Laboratories, rated as one of the best speakers in multiple energy conferences, and more importantly a successful family man who has been with his wife for over 20 years and has five wonderful kids. So perhaps next time Mr. Roberts would come up with a better adjective for me than a “troll” just because of some differences. Nonetheless, I don’t see the value of surrounding one-self with liked minded individuals -where is the fun and the learning experience in that? Mr. Roberts recently did a TEDx video, which I thought was very well done and intelligently articulated about the concerns of climate change.
Personally, I do believe with a statistical odd that climate change is real and that it could have significant impact to society. Mr. Robert is correct to point out the 2C is likely past. The odds of this occurring are very high. The depth of the problem is very large. Using the mathematical models and running my own simulations, I showed that de-carbonizing both the US and Europe would amount to a delay of 30-50 years in hitting the same level of ppm. Without worldwide effort, the problem is almost futile to solve.
The problem is more than an economic question, it is a philosophical issue. Our society, particularly in the US, is hell-bent on living for the now – Carpe Diem. Many people are not properly planning for retirement. Our political leaders, rather borrow from the future than to have a recession on their watch. In fact, one could probably plot the growth of credit/debt along with the global climate problem, which Mr. Roberts presents in the video; it would be a similar story to global warming. We have a refusal to change the financial path, since it is much easier to see that borrowing now makes us feel better. Likewise changing our energy consumption would take “work” to say the least. Many politicians have little regards for future consequences much like their statement for climate change as Mr. Roberts points out. Therefore in order to solve this problem, we need to change society and its view on planning. Taking near term pain maybe what the doctor is ordering for long-term survival. If we can’t do it in the financial world, I am afraid we cannot do it in the real world for energy.
Beyond our own societal sentiment for Carpe Diem, we need to contemplate balancing all our concerns/special projects. We cannot solve everything equally – capital allocations are a necessity. I don’t see a way out to have social security, medicare, our policing of the world, and then add more expenses for global climate change. Money is really not just paper. Something needs to give. Our attitude to be able to fund everything is due to society being used to living on debt. We need to start making some tough decisions and ultimately sacrifices will be made. Very similar to families on a budget, one cannot spend on everything even if the desire is great.
Adding to the complexity, some of these special projects also include projects that for 100% certainty can save millions of lives at a discrete cost – as proven by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as they try to eliminate polio and malaria. Where is the humanity balance between saving lives now or for some statistical probability saves lives later? Perhaps this brings me to a very interesting possible paper on human behavior action – if someone hasn’t already written one. I would hypothesize one could mathematically derive that the level of certainty must approach infinity as time goes beyond a few years for action to occur. Meaning I believe the way we are wired is to act on known issues, but when there are unknowns the greater the time the greater of increased probability is needed before we act. Given this thesis, I find our ability to react to global warming very minimal at this time – even though it may be the correct thing to do.
Mr. Roberts alludes to the point – it would seem adaptation is inevitable. Personally I wish it wasn’t the case, but wishing doesn’t usually solve problems. It may be more appropriate to start making decisions on the adaptation level e.g. building near or below sea level seems to be very short sighted. Perhaps one should contemplate redirecting existing mitigation research to proactive ways to modify the climate via geo-engineering since by the time we act; mitigation will not be an option. We certainly need to be more open minded – myself included – in viewing these issues in multiple lenses. The problem is a lot more complex than what a single individual can comprehend.
At All Energy Consulting, we can help you view the energy markets through a pragmatic unbiased lens. We hope to offer color to the energy discussion, which should stimulate thought. Please consider us for your energy consulting needs.
Your Energy Consultant / Troll to some,
614-356-0484
Renewable Futures Part 2 Idealistic Speak
This is partly a continuation of my last blog – Renewable Electricity Futures NREL Report Critical Assessment. I had personal emails on the assessment discussing the other topic I did not want to get into at the time – Cost. I also received references to the report put out by the WWF and Ecofys report. This report is very pretty in its design and perhaps a good document for a stretch goal concept, but in terms of application and reality it is far from real.
For some reason we have an idealism that the cost of placing renewables into the system will be at zero cost relative to the baseline. To address this topic let me first say in general; most people including myself would very much like renewable power that is until the discussion of cost and allocation is brought up. The executives at utility companies are also very inclined for renewables. Essentially almost every human being other than those individuals who are so incentivized to maintain current ways are pro-renewable. If it was really no incremental cost, I promise you renewable technology and implementation would be much further along. There is no hidden conspiracy – particularly at the generation level to not implement renewable. The utilities could/should care less where and what was making the electrons. There is very little connection between a utility and the various fossil fuel producers particularly for a regulated utility. The regulated utility is incentivized by capital investments. Most utilities should drive to achieve greater renewables which require large capital investments-that is a direct return to shareholders. Whereas operating costs are not, they are passed through – therefore shareholders get no return. However, what causes them not to build massive renewables is the cost. Higher cost limits the ability to spend on maintaining the system, since rates are limited by a political/societal demand. By allocating cost to renewables, it will leave little room for other spending- some perhaps more necessary than others.
The way to view cost from studies like this is to view the total investment needed. For some reason many want to discuss retail rates. However many fail to note and/or realize rate structures are very complicated and are not just a function of wholesale power prices and/or generation investments. The NREL Renewable Futures Report did note it, but ended up using a wrong proxy in my estimates – “…the retail price of electricity must also cover distribution and other costs. These additional costs are not estimated directly in ReEDS. Instead, the markup from wholesale to retail prices is estimated based on a calibration with historical (2006) prices.” I will promise you the difference between wholesale and retail will continue to grow. Many right now will see on their bill that the Transmission & Distribution (T&D) cost will be greater than the Generation (G). This is a function of many things. One was a failure for many utilities to allocate capital appropriately in the past for required T&D expenses. In addition, given many markets decoupling of generation many of the cost which are traditional G cost are being moved into T&D. As an example, many utilities are attempting to move their renewable requirements as T&D expenses.
The figure to examine in the NREL Renewables Future Report – assuming it is done appropriately to include investment cost – for cost is A-4 A. It shows the baseline investment of $4 Trillion dollars – $100 Billion per year for the next 40 years. For the 80% case it shows an additional Trillion dollars – $25 billion per year. It is true there will be a fuel savings which is the basis of many of the “crazy speak” announcing renewables are zero cost. However, the fuel savings needs to be discounted back to present since the savings are coming from the outer years. In addition, you are asking a society to think about the future when in general people are not thinking about their own personal finances with a median 401k savings amounting to $23K. Also, you have global financial system/society fixated on debt as a way of growth. To have society care about future savings is truly an uphill battle now. The cost to increase renewable generation is not free. However if we think about capital allocation and the areas to invest/spend money which we may or may not have, renewable investments certainly would not rank the lowest compared to wars, executive compensation, financial bailouts – but it will have to compete with other societies special projects social security, education, shelter, nutrition, etc…
At All Energy Consulting we can help you view the energy markets through a pragmatic unbiased lens. We hope to offer color to the energy discussion, which should stimulate thought. Please consider us for your energy consulting needs.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
