I'm Starting A Campaign Against CPS Energy: Support Residential, Commercial Solar

[boutons_deux]

CPS Energy is unique in that it is the largest municipally owned energy company in USA, but it's still banally structured as a centralized energy supplier.

That needs to change, especially in the year-round, sun-drenched CPS Energy coverage area.

There's abundant experience in rooftop solar, rates, equipment, incentives, etc in California, other US states, Germany, etc which would guide CPS in avoiding the mistakes of the pioneers.


Backgrounders on distributed vs centralized energy:


http://grist.org/climate-energy/rooftop-solar-vs-utilities-the-san-antonio-episode/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed


http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/


http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-can-we-boost-distributed-solar-and-save-utilities-at-the-same-time/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed


http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-grows-up-now-what/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed


There's an association of solar installers who I'm sure will support the campaign:

http://www.solarsanantonio.org/


I'm working with Michael Higgins of http://www.greenstarsolutions.net/index.php for my own rooftop or ground mount solar.

[Drachen]

What are your aims?

[boutons_deux]

What are your aims?

duh

For CPS Energy to promote, aggressively, distributed solar.

[Drachen]

duh

For CPS Energy to promote, aggressively, distributed solar.

Their generous rebate doesn't count?

[CosmicCowboy]

Cant believe I'm with Boutons on this one. CPS is about to kill rooftop solar. The only thing that makes it feasible now(even with the rebates) is what they call "net metering". Meaning if I over produce X amount of KW (produced when they need it the most in the afternoon in the summertime) they give me X- KW for free back when the sun isn't shining.

They are about to kill this and are only grandfathering the early adopters in like me for 10 years. I am fucking furious about this. Meanwhile, they are paying 11 cents a KWH to this "insider" solar farm contractor at the source.

[boutons_deux]

Their generous rebate doesn't count?

they're decreasing it, rather than at least maintaining it, or better, increasing it.

and they need to pay more per Kwh feed in tariff, so payback period is shortened.

And if you provide the grid more Kwh/year than your consume from the grid, you must get credit or cash for it, and it must be rolled over (it expires now each year, you start over)


Beyond CPS, Bexar County Tax assessor must IGNORE any added resale value to a residence or commercial building derived from its solar installation.

[Drachen]

they're decreasing it, rather than at least maintaining it, or better, increasing it.

and they need to pay more per Kwh feed in tariff, so payback period is shortened.

And if you provide the grid more Kwh/year than your consume from the grid, you must get credit or cash for it, and it must be rolled over (it expires now each year, you start over)


Beyond CPS, Bexar County Tax assessor must IGNORE any added resale value to a residence or commercial building derived from its solar installation.

OK, see that is better. I was asking for specific goals. Thank you.

The last one, I have to say that while it would be great, I don't see a real reason that the assessors office should ignore improvements to property.

with that said, I could get behind the other goals.

[boutons_deux]

CPS is killing, at least not promoting distributed solar, but they were ready to spend $10Bs on nuclear and charge ratepayers for it.

How about spending those $10Bs promoting, safe, clean solar investment by ratepayers.


South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic

http://texasvox.org/2009/07/07/south-texas-project-nuclear-reactors-too-expensive-cost-estimate-low-balls/


I can't find a number, but surely CPS paid $10Ms for the quote, study, whatever of the cancelled nuke.

Much better to spend those wasted $10Ms on promoting distributed solar, which doesn't suffer from costly "refueling outages" like CPS has now with current nukes.

[boutons_deux]

Utility Solar Business Model Flaws: CPS Energy's "SunCredit" Isn't the Answer


San Antonio, Texas -- As an owner of a small (16 kWp) PV plant, the local utility recently informed me that they would soon be discontinuing net metering in favor of a fixed payment per renewably produced kWh (cheerily termed a SunCredit), which is to be determined annually. Specifically, the retail value of a grid-delivered kWh is 9.9 cents while the value of a PV produced kWh is only 57% of that (5.6 cents). The remaining 4.3 cents per kWh is absorbed in the costs of transmission lines, transformers, administration, maintenance and the like.
The utilitys official rationale (http://www.cpsenergy.com/Services/Generate_Deliver_Energy/Solar_Power/SunCredit/index.asp) is that with more and more solar PV being installed, “…the costs of the utility infrastructure are borne by fewer customers—those who don’t have solar systems”. By the same logic, the utility will also need to develop a surcharge for those who reduce their energy consumption by installing energy saving measures.

There are a multitude of facets to this policy that could be discussed including; the actual costs of infrastructure (a PV kW is likely delivered to a very localized section of the grid), social engineering (wealthier people are more likely to have PV plants and can therefore subsidize others), peak demand costs that the utility is able to shed, and continued efforts to incentivize renewable energy. This policy, however, has another implication which is that a renewably produced kWh is somehow different from an unused kWh realized through efficiency gains.

For example, I might choose to change the thermostat set point to reduce energy costs at the expense of my comfort. I could also invest capital in additional insulation, radiant barriers, solar water heating, timers, occupancy detectors, or a myriad of other systems. The result would be that each day, the electrical meter would record a few less kWh and the utility would realize less revenue while their infrastructure costs remain the same. Alternatively, I might choose to invest the same capital in a small wind turbine or a few kW of PV. Either investment produces the same result – the utility receives less revenue while their costs remain fixed. However, under the SunCredit policy, only 57% of the renewable energy investment potential is realized. The likely result will be reduced investment in PV generation (I know I have cancelled plans to add to the system).

It could be said that the difference between a renewable and a saved kWh is in its potential to be metered. Rate structures currently in use by the local utility can only be applied to a metered item, so the only way for the utility to maintain its infrastructure is to bias the rate structure against PV using SunCredits.

The SunCredit approach (http://www.cpsenergy.com/Services/Generate_Deliver_Energy/Solar_Power/SunCredit/index.asp) seems ultimately flawed, however. At some point, PV generation and storage may become inexpensive enough so that many people will opt for off-grid rather than grid connected approaches. Eventually, relatively few grid users could be left to pay for the infrastructure. Highway departments appear to be suffering a similar problem as automobiles use less gasoline per mile, the taxes available for maintaining the highways diminish.

So what’s to be done? One approach could be to adopt a policy similar to that practiced by the real estate industry to account for fixed asset (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/utility-solar-business-model-flaws-cps-energys-suncredit-isnt-the-answer#) costs. If you rent an office space, you are charged rent for that space, plus a surcharge for common area maintenance (CAM). The CAM is recomputed every year based on the costs incurred by the building divided by the number of tenants in the building (with some fudge factors applied for the type and amount of the space). Similarly, the utility would calculate their CIM (common infrastructure maintenance) and divide by the number of connected users, also using some fudge factors for the type of service. The CIM yearly costs would be spread over each monthly billing cycle for every connected user. In this manner, the infrastructure costs would be distributed among each user, not units of energy. Another approach could be to allow net metering only after a minimum monthly energy usage is met. The minimum usage would be based on the CIM costs and total kWh delivered throughout the grid.

Either approach would allow for excess energy to be credited at the retail rate. With an assurance that CIM costs are covered, the utility is free to allow unrestrained energy production into their grid. If the total energy produced by the customer’s PV plant exceeds the minimum usage value or the CIM cost, the PV plant owner could still enjoy a zero dollar electrical bill or obtain a credit while the utility continues to receive revenue when it sells the excess energy to someone else. In this manner installation of more PV capacity would be encouraged while simultaneously allowing the utility to recoup their infrastructure costs

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/utility-solar-business-model-flaws-cps-energys-suncredit-isnt-the-answer

Lots of article comments with lots of different viewpoints, most are serious.

[Wild Cobra]

Cant believe I'm with Boutons on this one. CPS is about to kill rooftop solar. The only thing that makes it feasible now(even with the rebates) is what they call "net metering". Meaning if I over produce X amount of KW in a month (produced when they need it the most in the afternoon in the summertime) they give me X- KW for free back when the sun isn't shining.

They are about to kill this and are only grandfathering the early adopters in like me for 10 years. I am fucking furious about this. Meanwhile, they are paying 11 cents a KWH to this "insider" solar farm contractor at the source.
Is it possible that they expect to see too much daytime power? more than they can use?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is it possible that they expect to see too much daytime power? more than they can use?

Not anytime soon. They are just focusing their solar attention on "solar farms" instead of distributed roof top solar and paying those crooks 11 cents a KWH at the source and then selling it to end users for 9.9 cents a KWH delivered.

[BobaFett1]

Solyndra

[boutons_deux]

CPS Energy Plan To Change Solar Credit Rate Outrages Advocates

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kstx/files/styles/card_280/public/201302/Evironment-Texas-Solar-Generation-130214.jpg

CPS Energy is replacing its solar credit system that pays solar energy (http://tpr.org/post/cps-energy-plan-change-solar-credit-rate-outrages-advocates#) users with another program that pays slightly less, leaving some solar energy organizations and customers outraged.

CPS Energy (http://www.cpsenergy.com/) customers currently pay 9.9 cents per kilowatt used, but people with solar energy (http://tpr.org/post/cps-energy-plan-change-solar-credit-rate-outrages-advocates#) on their home or business receive the same 9.9 cents back as a credit on their bill for every kilowatt they generate in a process called net-metering.

CPS Energy is proposing a plan called SunCredit that reduces that amount to a solar energy market value. This year that value is 5.6 cents. CPS Energy Spokeswoman Christine Patmon said the change is to evenly distribute the cost of infrastructure like utility poles among customers.

"It’s unfair for customers who can’t afford solar to shoulder all of the costs of infrastructure alone," Patmon said.
Lanny Sinkin, executive director of Solar San Antonio (http://www.solarsanantonio.org/), disagrees with that statement.

"That’s a problem in California in some utility areas where you have a 20 percent penetration rate of solar energy," Sinkin said. "In other words, solar is delivering 20 percent of the total energy. At that point you have problems with the maintenance and operation of the system because so many people are on solar. In San Antonio, we have about 8 megawatts of solar distributed in a system that’s more than 7000 megawatts."

Sinkin said CPS Energy did not appropriately reach out to solar customers on what would be a fair rate, and certain solar projects are being put on hold because of the announcement.

http://tpr.org/post/cps-energy-plan-change-solar-credit-rate-outrages-advocates

[boutons_deux]

Solar Advocates Unite To Oppose CPS Energy's Solar Credit Changes
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kstx/files/styles/card_280/public/201304/suncredit%20graphic-cps%20energy.jpg

San Antonio’s solar power industry is collectively fighting back against a plan by CPS Energy to lower a credit given to solar energy (http://tpr.org/post/solar-advocates-unite-oppose-cps-energys-solar-credit-changes#) users.

Solar interests are calling for CPS Energy to backtrack on its decision to introduce SunCredit, a program that would reduce an existing dollar-for-dollar credit on generating solar energy.

Lanny Sinkin, executive director of Solar San Antonio (http://www.solarsanantonio.org/), told a group of solar project managers (http://tpr.org/post/solar-advocates-unite-oppose-cps-energys-solar-credit-changes#) and home owners that the utility is willing to meet with a small group of them to talk about what options are on the table.

"I’m recommending that we do pursue the idea of a small delegation that meets with them, that we start the discussion on these issues, that we insist the discussion be a broader discussion than just SunCredit," Sinkin said. "We’re happy to discuss SunCredit and it’s flaws, of which there are many."

Sinkin said the proposed SunCredit plan is most unfair to current solar users.

"These are people who made investments based on numbers they were told. Now you’re changing the numbers and reducing the return on investment, we don’t think that’s fair and it’s probably not legal," Sinkin said.

He is proposing solar advocates and CPS Energy form a solar working group to work out another method. The plan under CPS Energy would credit 5.6 cents per kilowatt to solar energy users, which is about 4 cents lower than the current rate.

The utility’s argument for a lower rate is that it helps pay for the cost of utility poles and other infrastructure. Current solar energy customers will be grandfathered in for ten years. If SunCredit (http://www.cpsenergy.com/Services/Generate_Deliver_Energy/Solar_Power/SunCredit/index.asp) goes through it will take effect in November.

CPS Energy will host a public meeting at La Villita on May 3 at 4 p.m. to allow people to voice their concerns.

http://tpr.org/post/solar-advocates-unite-oppose-cps-energys-solar-credit-changes

[Wild Cobra]

Boo hoo.

It is their infrastructure. To sell energy back at the same rate is unreasonable. The initial incentive I believe is grandfathered, and they can't do it for everyone in the future.

[boutons_deux]

CPS is municipally owned (not investor/Wall ST owned). so it's "San Antionians infrastructure".

With 100Ks of solar rooftops handling peak (cooling) electricity demand in hot summer months, CPS avoids spending $10Bs on new infrastructure like new nukes (one of which they already bungled, see above), coal plants, and water consumption.

The infrastructure is already in place, paid for, by (solar) electricity consumers.

As per WC's blind anti-democratic ideology, same as the JINO extremist Repug SCOTUS, he always supports, prefers institutions fucking over Human-Americans.

[boutons_deux]

Austin, San Antonio dominate solar in Texas (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213)
Last week the Environment Texas Research and Policy Center issued a report finding that overwhelmingly two cities, Austin and San Antonio account for the majority of solar installed in Texas and it’s not just a small amount, fully 85 percent of solar in the large, sun-rich state is installed in the two cities.


The “Texas’ solar story is primarily a tale of two cities – San Antonio and Austin – with the rest of the state largely languishing in the shadow,” said Luke Metzger, Director of Environment Texas. “It’s time we reach for the sun and bring clean solar energy (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213#) to the rooftops of all of Texas’ homes, schools and businesses.” The organization released the report during Texas’ biennial legislative session in an effort to help the legislature consider expanding solar programs.

The report, Reaching for the Sun: How San Antonio and Austin Are Showing that Solar Is a Powerful Energy Option for Texas (http://environmenttexas.org/news/txe/san-antonio-austin-support-85-percent-texas-solar-energy-installations), found that largely because of policies enacted by their local utilities, San Antonio, with 52.6 megawatts and Austin, with 41.3 megawatts, are the state’s largest markets for solar.

Both San Antonio and Austin have set aggressive goals for solar. In fact, San Antonio’s utility, CPS Energy, has plans to have largest municipally-owned photovoltaic (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213#) project in the U.S., a 400 megawatt project (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/400-mws-of-new-solar-to-san-antonio-072512) through a partnership with OCI Solar Power, which is locating manufacturing facilities there. Austin’s utility, Austin Energy has also announced that it plans to go 35 percent renewable by 2020 and to install about 200 megawatts of solar (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-energy-and-local-groups-at-odds-on-expanding-solar-022212) as part of that goal.

Other cities in Texas lag far behind. The report found that the utility with the third largest amount of solar in the state is Oncor with 9.98 megawatts. The utility serves Dallas, Fort Worth and other areas, according to the study.

In the report, the center also cites a recent study by the Texas’ electric grid (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213#) operator, ERCOT, which showed that solar and wind are the most cost-effective ways to meet the state’s growing electric needs on hot summer days. That study determined that solar and wind were more advantageous for power than even natural gas, according to the center.

To help ensure that happens, Environment Texas said there are a number of pieces of legislation wending their way through the capitol there to expand the amount of solar in the state. Among them are: HB 1094 SB 385, to update Texas’ Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing law; HB 723 to install of 1,500 megawatts of solar and renewable energy (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213#) by 2022; HB 303 to require a 35 percent renewable portfolio standard with at least 2 percent from solar energy; SB 304 to require homebuilders offer solar energy as a standard option to their customers; and SB 305 to exempt solar installations from state sales tax.

http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/austin-san-antonio-dominate-solar-in-texas-022213

[Wild Cobra]

The infrastructure is already in place, paid for, by (solar) electricity consumers.

As per WC's blind anti-democratic ideology, same as the JINO extremist Repug SCOTUS, he always supports, prefers institutions fucking over Human-Americans.
I'm a realist. I understand that if you take profit out of capitalism, that the capitalists will stop building.

[boutons_deux]

CPS Energy to Announce OCI as Developer of 400 MW Solar PV Plant

San Antonio is also the home of the 16.5 megawatt Blue Wing project (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-blue-wing-solar-project1/). That project is owned by Duke Energy and the power is purchased by CPS Energy under a 30-year power purchase agreement.
CPS is "likely paying between 15 and 16 cents per kilowatt hour for its current solar power" and "this deal could be as much as 30 percent less," according to the San Antonio paper


http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/CPS-Energy-to-Announce-OCI-as-Developer-of-400-MW-Solar-PV-Plant (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/CPS-Energy-to-Announce-OCI-as-Developer-of-400-MW-Solar-PV-Plant)

So CPS is already paying centralized solar suppliers $0.10+ per Kwh to OCI and Blue Wing, but is screwing distributed rooftop solar.

[boutons_deux]

I'm a realist. I understand that if you take profit out of capitalism, that the capitalists will stop building.

CPS isn't capitalist, it's socialist, a public utility, a non-profit "socialisitically" owned by San Antonio government.

[Wild Cobra]

CPS isn't capitalist, it's socialist, a public utility, a non-profit "socialisitically" owned by San Antonio government.
They still have to maintain the infrastructure.

Question.

Do you realize how much power loss is involved in giving energy back to them?

If the power loses 20% by the time it gets to you, and your every loses 20% by the time it gets to a different customer...

Be realistic.

[boutons_deux]

Do you realize that solar rooftops, paid for by the consumer, supplying the building don't have the transmission loss to the building?

are diminishing the the need for CPS to invest in new nuke and coal?

[boutons_deux]

As the articles I posted above show, distributed electricity generation is truly a disruptive technology, which is exactly why centralized suppliers like CPS resist it, not for your fucking "transmission losses".

[CosmicCowboy]

WC, you aren't getting it.

Here is a link to my system. (BTW it was cloudy yesterday) This is Texas. Our peak load is in the afternoon for air conditioning. When my system is overproducing in the afternoon it's going to my next door neighbors. CPS isn't having to generate and transmit that energy dozens of miles to my neighbors houses.

http://egauge4225.egaug.es/

As for these solar farms CPS is doing with these outside vendors they are paying THEM between 11 and 16 cents a KWH AT THE FARM that they then turn around and sell to consumers DELIVERED TO THEIR HOUSE for 9.9 cents. It's an insider scam.

[Drachen]

WC, you aren't getting it.

Here is a link to my system. (BTW it was cloudy yesterday) This is Texas. Our peak load is in the afternoon for air conditioning. When my system is overproducing in the afternoon it's going to my next door neighbors. CPS isn't having to generate and transmit that energy dozens of miles to my neighbors houses.

http://egauge4225.egaug.es/

As for these solar farms CPS is doing with these outside vendors they are paying THEM between 11 and 16 cents a KWH AT THE FARM that they then turn around and sell to consumers DELIVERED TO THEIR HOUSE for 9.9 cents. It's an insider scam.

THIS is very cool I like the link. Plus, by selling it to your neighbor, there are minimal transmission losses.

Are the spikes your AC cycling on?

I do have a question, though.... are they indeed selling the solar power to their customers at a price of 9.9 cents? I remember that for a while, you could optionally add wind power to your mix for x cents more and I (once) saw something similar for solar power. They called it windtricity and solaricity, respectively.

[coyotes_geek]

Rare that I agree with the boutons, but he's right. What CPS is doing sucks. Every electric utility should be encouraging rooftop solar.

[Drachen]

Rare that I agree with the boutons, but he's right. What CPS is doing sucks. Every electric utility should be encouraging rooftop solar.

Agreed, it seems to save them, and their consumers money.

[boutons_deux]

Agreed, it seems to save them

read the article(s) I posted above to see why centralized electricity utilities are against disruptive decentralized electricity.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you aren't getting it.

Here is a link to my system. (BTW it was cloudy yesterday) This is Texas. Our peak load is in the afternoon for air conditioning. When my system is overproducing in the afternoon it's going to my next door neighbors. CPS isn't having to generate and transmit that energy dozens of miles to my neighbors houses.

http://egauge4225.egaug.es/

As for these solar farms CPS is doing with these outside vendors they are paying THEM between 11 and 16 cents a KWH AT THE FARM that they then turn around and sell to consumers DELIVERED TO THEIR HOUSE for 9.9 cents. It's an insider scam.
I do get it. They need to establish rates for the future, and what amounts to a subsidy to the large farms isn't going to last forever. What about when all your neighbors decide to do the same thing, and then it has a longer route to travel, including through the transformers?

I think you agree if they are paying the large solar farms up to 16 cents a KWH, that these systems would never have been built to begin with if they had to compete with market rates. It's just another redistribution of wealth, for a political agenda.

[boutons_deux]

Just got this from a solar installation company

========================

Date: 4/23/2013

Dear Solar Stakeholder,

After receiving initial feedback from our solar customers, we are making a change to the SunCredit Program proposal. All existing solar installations and those that have a completed registration form and pre-construction documents submitted by May 31, 2013, will be grandfathered to the current net meter program, for the life of the system.

Also, the logistics and agenda for the SunCredit Program public input session have been established. The event will take place on Friday, May 3, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., at the Villita Assembly Building located at 401 Villita Street. Parking is being made available at the CPS Energy Navarro Garage starting at 3:45 p.m.

The public input session will cover four topics: Program Development, How SunCredit Works, Customer Impact, and SunCredit Calculation. Each of the topics will be presented in four separate tracks and repeated every 35 minutes to allow you the opportunity to attend one or all topics of interest, and to provide a discussion forum. Registration is from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.



Track A
Program Development
Track B
How it Works
Track C
Customer Impact
Track D
SunCredit Calculation


4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.


4:50 p.m.- 5:20 p.m.
4:50 p.m.- 5:20 p.m.
4:50 p.m.- 5:20 p.m.
4:50 p.m.- 5:20 p.m.


5:25 p.m. -5:55 p m.
5:25 p.m. -5:55 p m.
5:25 p.m. -5:55 p m.
5:25 p.m. -5:55 p m.


6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.




For courtesy of all attendees, we kindly ask that you refrain from bringing any signs, props, or any noise-making devices that may distract from the meeting. For more information about the SunCredit program or this event, visit www.cpsenergy.com (http://www.cpsenergy.com/), contact us at [email protected], or call (210) 353-6229.

Sincerely,

Solar Program Administration

[CosmicCowboy]

Sweet. I sent them a blistering fucking email as soon as they announced it and let them know I was going to be rocking city hall if they shit backwards on the contract we had.

LIFE OF THE SYSTEM

fuck yeah.

That means it's transferable.

[Drachen]

I do get it. They need to establish rates for the future,

So why is an electron from a solar farm more valuable than an electron from a house, even in the future.

and what amounts to a subsidy to the large farms isn't going to last forever.

They can change the rates for all producers at the same time

What about when all your neighbors decide to do the same thing, and then it has a longer route to travel, including through the transformers?

Will it be as long a route as the route from the solar farm? Probably not.

I think you agree if they are paying the large solar farms up to 16 cents a KWH, that these systems would never have been built to begin with if they had to compete with market rates. It's just another redistribution of wealth, for a political agenda.

The redistribution of wealth is, once again, going to big business

[Drachen]

Sweet. I sent them a blistering fucking email as soon as they announced it and let them know I was going to be rocking city hall if they shit backwards on the contract we had.

LIFE OF THE SYSTEM

fuck yeah.

That means it's transferable.

Congrats, hopefully it doesn't end here though.

[CosmicCowboy]

Congrats, hopefully it doesn't end here though.

Sounds like they are crab walking out of it. Bottom line IMHO it will never be as good as the deal I signed. Hopefully they give up completely but I seriously don't see that happening.

[boutons_deux]

Bloomberg Study: 70 Percent Of New Global Power Capacity Added Through 2030 Will be Renewable (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/25/1916291/bloomberg-study-70-percent-of-new-global-power-capacity-through-2030-will-be-renewable/)

After accumulating the latest data on economic prosperity, market trends, demand growth, technology development, and likely future policies, BNEF’s modeling program spit out three projection scenarios: the optimistic “Barrier Busting” scenario, the pessimistic “Traditional Territory” scenario, and the middle-of-the-road “New Normal” scenario.


The New Normal scenario is considered the most likely. It shows the investment requirement for new clean energy assets in the year 2030 at $630bn (in nominal terms), more than three times the investment in the renewable energy capacity that was built in 2012. This 2030 investment figure is 35 percent higher than that produced in Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s last global forecast a year ago, and the projection for total installed renewable energy capacity by that date is 25 percent higher than in that previous forecast, at 3,500GW.

In the power sector, the research company’s latest forecasts project that 70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 2030 will be from renewable technologies (including large hydro). Only 25 percent will be in the form of coal, gas or oil, the remaining being nuclear.



http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/bnef-renewables-2030.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/bnef-renewables-2030.jpg)
Newly installed capacity in gigawatts. (Source: BNEF/Grist)



Significantly, even under the Traditional Territory projections, renewable investments would be $470 billion in 2030 — over twice what they are now.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/25/1916291/bloomberg-study-70-percent-of-new-global-power-capacity-through-2030-will-be-renewable/

[boutons_deux]

Solar Jobs Beat Out Ranchers In Texas, Actors In California, And Coal Miners Nationally (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/28/1911091/solar-jobs-beat-out-ranchers-in-texas-actors-in-california-and-coal-miners-nationally/)

The Solar Foundation’s announcement (http://thesolarfoundation.org/state-solar-jobs-map-press-release) contains further details:

“In comparing our estimates with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we find that California now has more solar workers than actors and that there are more solar jobs in Texas than there are ranchers. Economies of scale are also making our industry more labor efficient, requiring only one-third the number of workers to install (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/28/1911091/solar-jobs-beat-out-ranchers-in-texas-actors-in-california-and-coal-miners-nationally/#) a megawatt of solar today as it did in 2010,” [said Andrea Luecke, Solar Foundation Executive Director.]

The top ten states for solar jobs in 2012 were: California, Arizona, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New York, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio. In comparing solar employment (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/28/1911091/solar-jobs-beat-out-ranchers-in-texas-actors-in-california-and-coal-miners-nationally/#) estimates from today’s release with previous state figures that examined solar jobs in only a few states, six states – California, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, and New York – are in the top ten for the third year in a row. Many of the highest-ranked solar jobs states are also those with the greatest cumulative installed capacity in the nation.



TSF’s work also determined that several of the top ten states — New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and Ohio — actually rank in the bottom 30 percent of states in terms of available sunlight. The strong industry presence despite a seemingly unfavorable climate is thanks to “high electricity prices (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/28/1911091/solar-jobs-beat-out-ranchers-in-texas-actors-in-california-and-coal-miners-nationally/#) and favorable tax and regulatory policies” as CNN Money put it (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/news/economy/solar-jobs/). Skeptics might consider that evidence of an artificial market created through government intervention, but then our national failure (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/23/1905421/global-ponzi-scheme-taking-73-trillion-year-natural-capital-from-our-children-without-paying/) to properly price carbon emissions and natural capital is massively subsidizing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/29/1791811/bombshell-imf-study-united-sates-is-worlds-number-one-fossil-fuel-subsidizer/) non-renewable power in the opposite direction.

Other facts the Solar Foundation dug up (http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/research/national-solar-jobs-census-2012) included a 13.2 percent job growth rate in the solar industry from 2011 to 2012 — which added almost 14,000 jobs — versus a mere 2.3 percent growth rate in the overall economy. 86 percent of those were 14,000 were entirely new jobs, as opposed to previously existing positions that simply added on solar components. And finally, another 17.2 percent job growth rate is expected in the industry for this year, meaning another 20,000 jobs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/28/1911091/solar-jobs-beat-out-ranchers-in-texas-actors-in-california-and-coal-miners-nationally/

If only RickyBobby were subsidizing solar to the extent he subsidizes BigOilGas.

[boutons_deux]

Sent to me by my solar supplier

===============


To: San Antonio Distributed Solar Industry

From: Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director, Solar San Antonio

At the City Council Citizens to be Heard last Wednesday, a number of installers had Power Point or other presentation materials. We would appreciate copies of those presentations being sent to our office.

Last night, we attended the CPS Energy SunCredit Event. The event was scheduled in Villita Assembly Hall, a cavernous space with cavernous acoustics. Perhaps the fact CPS Energy owns the building and avoided the need to pay for a space resulted in choosing such an inappropriate venue/format. The simultaneous four sessions were in spaces curtained off. The noise level was so high from four presentations being made at once that the CPS Energy presenters had to apologize for yelling.

Listening to people respond to SunCredit, it was clear that there were no supporters of the program present. Questions asked were often not answered. The overall impact seemed to be raising more questions than were answered.

Relevant recent media:

CPS Energy may well change the solar credit to provide a higher return and hope that will mollify the solar industry. It is important to understand that money is not the issue; control is the issue. By manipulating what constitutes "retail" that will be charged for all solar generation, asserting the right to charge for such generation, and controlling the level of the solar credit within the SunCredit Program, the utility can accelerate or extinguish the solar industry.

In a recent meeting with CPS Energy personnel, we were told that the solar credit within the SunCredit Program would never be reduced as a way of controlling solar. Misdirecting attention to some possible future reduction in the solar credit avoids focusing on the impact of what has already been put forth. Choosing to eliminate many items normally considered in a Value of Solar Study and undervaluing those included, specifying the credit only for the first year, and announcing a rate that the utility knew would result in foreclosing future solar sales, CPS Energy already demonstrated how such programs can be used to stifle solar.

The concern throughout the country is whether these types of programs can be abused to put distributed solar at a disadvantage or eliminate DG altogether. Whether intentional or not, CPS Energy is now the poster child on how such programs can be abused.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Power-Grab-San-Antonios-CPS-Looks-To-Eliminate-Net-Metering

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Shape-of-Things-to-Come-in-Solar-San-Antonio-Replaces-Net-Metering


As far as the most recent developments:

http://www.ksat.com/news/brownes-blog-the-cps-suncredit-plan/-/478452/20004408/-/7o19ef/-/index.html

http://www.ksat.com/news/cps-energy-hosts-solar-information-session/-/478452/20010172/-/sydo8pz/-/index.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-faces-hostility-over-solar-proposal-4487571.php

[boutons_deux]

CPS backs away from plan to slash solar incentive

CPS Energy announced Thursday that is backing away from its proposal to slash a key subsidy for customers with solar power systems in the wake of protests from affected customers and local solar installers.

The city-owned utility said it would delay making changes to its net-metering program for a year while it works with local solar customers and installers to come up with an “equitable solution.”

“We've heard the industry's concerns on a number of issues,” Cris Eugster, CPS Energy's executive vice president and chief strategy and technology officer, said in a statement made on the utility's blog. “We're looking forward to working with them on a program that will allow for a viable rooftop solar industry, while at the same time being fair to all customers.”

Solar San Antonio executive director Lanny Sinkin declared victory in a statement released to the Express-News on Thursday morning.

“Now the real work begins of choosing a group, setting an agenda, and conducting productive discussions,” said Sinkin, who serves as the de facto spokesman for local solar installers and CPS' solar customers.

However, CPS spokeswoman Lisa Lewis reiterated the utility's desire to reduce the payout it gives to solar customers for their electricity generation.

“We are going to walk away from this process with something that is different from what we're doing today,” she said. “We don't know what we're going to end up with.”

Under the current “net-metering” program, customers with solar power systems are allowed to count each kilowatt of solar energy they produce against each kilowatt of energy they consume from the grid, sometimes zeroing out their CPS Energy bills.

However, the utility says the arrangement is unsustainable because it means that solar customers aren't paying their fair share to help maintain the utility's infrastructure: its wires, poles and substations.

It proposed replacing the net-metering program with “SunCredit” — a system that would credit solar customers a fixed amount for each kilowatt of solar energy they produced. Under the new system, the solar energy would be worth a little more than half of what it was worth under “net-metering.”

About 1,000 CPS customers eventually would have been affected by the program, although some would have been phased in.

Under the proposal, existing solar customers and those who turned in their paperwork to install a solar system before April 27 would be grandfathered in the net-metering program until 2023. Solar installers and solar customers protested, and the utility pushed the deadline back to May 31.

As the protests continued, the utility announced another concession: Customers with solar systems or those who met the May deadline would be allowed to remain in the net-metering program for the life of their solar systems.
The latest announcement comes six days after the utility held a contentious public meeting to seek feedback on the proposal.

http://mobile.mysa.com/mysa/db_283104/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=wXQOcrb2&full=true#display

[boutons_deux]

Rooftop Revolution: How Solar Energy Is Putting Power Back in the Hands of the People

http://www.alternet.org/environment/rooftop-revolution-how-solar-energy-putting-power-back-hands-people?akid=10468.187590.b7uFsy&rd=1&src=newsletter843853&t=11&paging=off

http://www.amazon.com/Rooftop-Revolution-BK-Currents-ebook/dp/B008V0NV4I/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1369240024&sr=1-1&keywords=rooftop+revolution

[boutons_deux]

Here's an exact statement of the battle of people's distributed solar vs the electric utilities' centralized generation business model

Energex says rooftop solar is trashing its business model (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/energex-says-rooftop-solar-is-trashing-its-business-model-58911)

Queensland electricity network operator Energex has conceded that its century-old business model is under threat from the increased use of rooftop solar, and a growing interest among its 1.3 million consumers to produce and manage their own energy needs.

The concession was included in the state-owned company’s annual report released last week, which noted that despite the huge population growth in south-east Queensland, demand from residential customers fell 3.8 per cent in 2012/13 from a year earlier.

Over the past four years, Energex says residential demand has fallen 10.4 per cent in south-east Queensland, one of the areas with the highest penetration of rooftop solar in Australia.
Energex cited rooftop solar PV as the main factor for this reduced demand, along with milder winters and summers, and the use of more energy-efficient appliances. Non-residential energy grew by 1.1 per cent in the same period.

The network operator, which manages a $10 billion network, says the number of customers with solar PV has jumped from less than 2,000 in 2009 to more than 221,000 at the end of June, 2013. It made 74,000 new solar connection in the last financial year.

“The rapidly evolving energy industry, changing energy use patterns and rising electricity prices are resulting in a trend toward energy management options for customers,” the company says in its annual report.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/energex-says-rooftop-solar-is-trashing-its-business-model-58911

In contrast, SA (avg 224 days of sunshine/year) has only this miniscule number of installations, with 1/10 the populaiton of Queensland (263 days of sunshine/year):



1,021 solar projects
10.8 megawatts installed
$3.98 avg cost/watt in January
Total Value $52,774,424.40


http://www.solarsanantonio.org/