Sunday, May 20 , 2018, 7:18 pm | Fair 64º

 
 
 
 

Tam Hunt: An Embarrassment of Riches

It’s time to get serious on renewables. We need a new, robust, European-style feed-in tariff

Renewable energy is taking off in many places around the world. Growth rates of 30 percent to 50 percent in wind and solar have been the norm for the last decade in the United States and around the world. Unfortunately, California has been stuck in neutral when it comes to wholesale renewables, relinquishing its early lead in the global renewable energy race.

Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt

The nations that have led the way on renewable energy in the last decade have used robust “feed-in tariffs” to create entire new industries. The litany is familiar to those in the renewable energy business: Germany, Italy, Spain, Ontario (a province in Canada) and now China. These five regions have all seen growth go from low levels to record levels practically overnight when they started requiring that utilities buy power at a set price from third-party developers of wind, solar and other renewables.

A sixth jurisdiction is less well-known: California. But not the California we live in now. Rather, the California that created a robust feed-in tariff in the 1980s under the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, or PURPA. Under PURPA, California faced an “embarrassment of riches” in terms of renewable energy projects coming online, as the Public Utilities Commission described it at the time.

The large majority of wind and solar projects online today in California came online in the 1980s and ‘90s under PURPA. Since PURPA was effectively gutted in the early 1990s, due to declining fossil fuel prices and tax policy changes, California has seen very little wholesale renewable energy come online. The current system, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (Senate Bills 1078 and 107), started in 2003 and has resulted in a tiny amount of new renewable energy development since then. All three of California’s big investor-owned utilities will fail to meet the current 20 percent by 2010 mandate for renewables and have, in fact, slid backward in terms of their renewable energy percentages since the start of this policy.

The California Solar Initiative, which applies only to net-metered retail solar, is doing quite well and is probably on track to meet its goal of 3,000 megawatts of new solar by 2017. But this is only about 2 percent of the projected electricity demand by 2017 — a relative drop in the bucket when we consider that the state mandate for renewables has been expanded to 33 percent by 2020. With the state hovering around 12 percent (for investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities combined), it’s clear we need some very serious solutions to reach this mandate.

We need an “embarrassment of riches” — again. California has a very limited feed-in tariff on the books today. Assembly Bill 1969, passed in 2007 and implemented in 2008, allows any renewable energy project up to 1.5 megawatts to be interconnected to the grid and the utility must buy the power at the “market-price referent,” which is the proxy cost for electricity from a new natural gas power plant. Only a handful of new projects have come online under this new feed-in tariff, however, because the size cap — what amounts to a single large wind turbine for wind power projects — and the price offered, are too low to attract investors. In addition, the interconnection process is opaque, lengthy and can be quite costly due to very limited oversight by the CPUC or Califonia ISO, the nonprofit agency that oversees the transmission grid.

SB 32, passed in 2009, would double this size limit to 3 megawatts, and provides authority to the CPUC to improve the pricing formula by accounting for the environmental benefits of renewables, instead of purely the traditional power component of renewable energy. But the law also gives great discretion to the CPUC to implement this law — or not — which is a major flaw in the law. The CPUC has so far declined to implement the law, almost a year after it passed.

It’s time to get serious on renewables in California. We need a new, robust, European-style feed-in tariff. The CPUC has suggested an expanded quasi-feed-in tariff system, known as the Renewable Auction Mechanism. But this isn’t a true feed-in tariff because companies have to bid into the system and wait for the utilities to select the winning bidders. There is no price transparency, so other companies won’t even know what the winning price is after the fact. And it costs a lot of money to develop project sites to the point where serious bids can be made. It takes deep pockets that only a few companies have. In other words, all but the wealthiest developers are shut out of the market. That’s no way to create a long-term market to benefit all Californians. Last, as we’ve already seen, it takes a long time to ramp up new systems like the auction policy — we’re still waiting for a proposed decision a year after the staff proposal was released.

AB 1106, a bill carried by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Arleta, and one that I co-authored, is pending in Sacramento. It failed to get out of committee last year, partly due to the competition from SB 32 and the perception that that much weaker bill could actually be passed into law. SB 32 did pass, but we now know that the CPUC has no intention of being serious on feed-in tariffs. SB 32 still hasn’t been implemented and even if it is eventually implemented, the size cap is still way too small to make a big difference. The size cap under PURPA was 80 megawatts. AB 1106 would allow projects up to 10 megawatts to qualify for the “must buy” feed-in tariff. This is a good start — far better than the 3 megawatt cap under SB 32.

With prices for wind, solar and other renewables now dropping significantly as production ramps up around the world, price is becoming less of an issue. The market-price referent system, which includes a boost for peak power deliveries, can be quite good even for small wind power projects. The key market barriers for 20 megawatt and below wind projects is generally not pricing anymore — it’s now difficulties with interconnection access and finding areas that have good wind that can be permitted without significant opposition. For solar, pricing is still difficult under today’s market-price referent formula, but costs continue to come down for solar so this may change in the next few years, which will leave access to the grid as the major problem for solar projects.

The key benefit of a true feed-in tariff is certainty: market actors know that if they meet certain criteria they can develop a project and have a guaranteed buyer for the renewable energy delivered to the grid, in a streamlined process. And they know the price they’ll be paid, making financing easier. Also, with this kind of certainty financiers will accept lower profit margins, thus reducing prices charged to ratepayers. For example, under an auction system, financiers may require a 12 percent to 15 percent return on equity, which is pricey. But with a true feed-in tariff, financiers are happy with less than 10 percent because they know they’ll actually make this money year in, year out, without a lot of money wasted on speculation or failed projects.

For this reason and others, a recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory study concluded: “Experience from Europe is also beginning to demonstrate that properly designed FITs may be more cost-effective than” auction systems like California’s current system and the new system proposed by the CPUC for smaller projects.

It’s time for California to reclaim its lead in renewable energy. We don’t have time to tinker around with new policies every few years, hoping they will work, and then conceding failure. Let’s take the tried and true policy that is widely accepted as the best way to rapidly accelerate renewable energy deployment. We need a robust feed-in tariff in California. Now.

— Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a consulting company and developer of medium-scale wind, solar and biomass projects. He also is a lecturer on climate change law and policy at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Click here for his blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >