Community Renewables: Best Practices: Issues & Solutions

ASES National Solar Conference Phoenix, AZ

May 19, 2010

1

Joseph F. Wiedman

IREC •  501(c)(3) non-profit working to expand opportunities for

the sustainable development of renewable energy •  Current projects:

– Net metering rules and Interconnection standards – Third-party ownership of renewable energy resources – Community renewable power policies – Smart Grid, vehicle electrification, and integration of storage – Workforce training and development for the renewables industry

•  Represented by Keyes & Fox, LLP

2

Community Renewable Power •  Current status in most states - Single system serves a single onsite

participant –  Excess generation is net metered for participant’s benefit

•  Community Renewables - Single system serves multiple participant(s) –  Policies used to distribute benefits:

•  Meter Aggregation •  Joint Billing •  Virtual Net Metering •  Community Ownership •  Utility Ownership

– Not addressing •  Joint purchasing programs, e.g. Portland, 1BOG

3

Meter Aggregation

4

•  One customer •  Load and

generation are not on same meter

•  Load and generation are on contiguous property

•  Cost to run new line = $600,000

Customer’s best sites for PV

Customer’s energy load

Joint Billing/Virtual Net Metering

5

•  Multiple tenants •  Single System •  System is

located onsite •  Each tenant has

a separate meter •  Cost of

rewiring to put in master meter = $60,000

Multiple Tenants

Single System

Joint Billing/Virtual Net Metering

6

•  Multiple home owners / renters

•  Single System •  System is offsite •  Shading, tenent

status, structural issues limits onsite generation

Ideal locations for a single large PV system

7

Policy Approach

States Number of Participants

Distance between generation and participants

Administration

Meter Aggregation

OR, PA, RI, WA, CA

*APS in AZ *Xcel in CO

One participant

• OR, RI, WA – within the service territory of an electric utility • PA – located within two miles of the generation source • CA – on government property within geographic boundaries of local government and within same utility service territory

Utility applies bill credits to designated accounts

Joint Billing VT Multiple participants

• VT – within the service territory of an electric utility

Utility issues a joint bill and customer representative bills participants

Virtual Net Metering

CA, MA, ME, RI

Multiple participants

• CA – on low-income, multitenant property • ME, MA, RI – within the service territory of an electric utility

Utility applies bill credits to designated accounts

Community Ownership

ME, WA Multiple investors

• ME – requires minimum 51% ownership by in-state interests. Systems receive either (i) 150% REC credit, or (ii) long term power sale contract with utility • WA –incentive program for jointly-owned systems providing retail power

Investors administer payment and incentives

Utility Offerings •  Typically local utility invests in a solar energy system and sells

shares to members •  Net metering credits are available either as a share of production or

as a fixed amount using virtual net metering •  Current status: Ashland, Oregon; Ellensburg, Washington;

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA; St. George, Utah; Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, Marathon, FL offer programs

•  Benefits: system economics can come close to mirroring onsite economics

8

States with statewide community renewable power programs

9 States currently have

state-wide community renewables

activity

Community Renewables in the States

9

States with active proposals

States where nearly all utilities have programs

Overview of IREC’s Community Renewable Power Concept Proposal

•  Guiding principles: – Participants should have an experience as close as possible to

investing in an onsite system – Community renewables should be additive to successful onsite

renweables programs •  Current Proposal

– Allocation of benefits => virtual net metering – Administration of credits => utility administration – Financing options => direct ownership, third-party ownership,

community ownership and utility ownership allowed – Compensation for wheeling => compensation for wheeling is

heavily dependant on rate design and the structure of overall program 10

11

IREC Resources

Assistance to Commissions and other stakeholders in developing community renewables programs – please contact

jwiedman@keyesandfox.com

State policies and maps at www.dsireusa.org

IREC website: www.irecusa.org

Keyes & Fox LLP: www.keyesandfox.com

Thank You!