A company controlled by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway - MidAmerican Energy Holdings - has announced that it will pay SunPower between $2.0 and $2.5 billion for the 579 MW Antelope Valley solar projects.
Shares of publicly-traded SunPower (SPWR) jumped on the news and closed the week at $8.73, up 2.6 times over its 52-week low.
MidAmerican had previously purchased a 49% stake in a 290 MW solar project in Arizona and the FirstSolar Topaz Solar Farm (590 MW) in California. The Antelope Valley project will sell power to SCE under two long-term contracts.
The announcement was certainly good news for SunPower which, like other manufacturers of solar power modules, has struggled in the last year as modules prices have continued to fall.
Of course, falling module prices - while extremely painful for module makers - is good news for installers and their clients. That said, we do not anticipate significant drops in system prices during 2013 and with rebates continuing to decline, waiting to buy is not likely to be a rewarding strategy.
Or at least so Mr. Buffett seems to think.
We wrote before about an upcoming study from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to determine the overall cost-benefit of installing solar. Well in advance of that study, the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in California are coming out swinging, with populist rhetoric about solar’s unfair impact. But just because a utility says something, doesn’t make it true! Here’s a quick take.
In the closing weeks of 2012 several news stories appeared, making the case for the IOU’s POV regarding solar. (This one from the San Francisco Chronicle is typical: Solar Power Adds to Nonusers’ Costs.)
Their theory is that because solar system owners pay according to Net Metering - whereby excess energy produced during the day is used to offset (or net out) energy usage at night or during stormy days - they are not paying their fare share of other fixed costs of the utility such as for distribution and transmission facilities.
It is certainly true that solar customers pay less for distribution and transmission systems because those costs are tied to a customer’s total usage and is not simply part of the fixed “customer charge” that all residential utility customers pay - including solar customers. But customers did not decide the nature of the utility’s rate structure, and presumably the IOUs were happy to charge more to cover “fixed costs” based on usage. If that is the case, then it is equally fair to receive less from a customer with a lower monthly usage.
Moreover, the “analysis” being advanced by the IOUs ignores the benefit of that net energy being provided by solar customers - since that energy largely peaks alongside the utility’s peak demand, it offsets peak production energy costs for the utility. Such “peaker” plants provide the most expensive energy a utility produces, so reducing that demand is actually a significant benefit to the utility.
At least one countervailing analysis asserts that solar customers are providing a net benefit: Solar Power Generation in the US: Too expensive, or a bargain? That study looked at all components of solar system benefits - including impacts on transmission and distribution - and concluded that solar power customers are actually subsidizing other users, even with solar deployment as high as 30% (the current net metering cap is just 5% and California is still a long way from reaching that goal).
Make no mistake, the IOUs are coming after net metering because it is beginning to affect their bottom line - and they can predict that as costs for solar continue to fall, that enormous potential for solar energy will hurt their business model. The solar industry is in for a fight - and it will be a fight of existential proportions.
Though not strictly speaking a solar news story, we are pleased to note that the “fiscal cliff” deal agreed to last night by the House includes provisions from the Senate that will preserve federal tax credits for wind power systems. You can read more about it over at Renewable Energy World, “Wind Energy Tax Credit Extension Passes with Fiscal Cliff Deal.“
Of course, the extension is relatively short term and it begs the question of what will happen with the solar ITC which is presently scheduled to expire at the end of 2016. Still, anytime support for renewable energy - be it wind or solar - passes Congress, it is grounds for rejoicing. Here’s hoping that this is only the first of many legislative victories in 2013.
Year-end is often a time for retrospection, and few things are more popular this time of year then Top 10 Lists (unless it is kissing under the Mistletoe - to which we say, feel free to combine both!). We decided to look back over our dozens of posts this year and highlight the 10 most popular based on our viewership data.
Each of these posts was viewed more than fifteen hundred times - which leaves us both humbled and very thankful indeed.
So here they are, our Top 10 Posts for 2012 (click on a title to read the post in full)…
One of the big stories of the year has been the on-again, off-again, on-again story of SolarCity’s proposed Initial Public Offering. While cleantech IPOs have not been a very pretty site, there was much buzz about the SolarCity IPO as being a potential bellwether for a change in “green” fortunes. SolarCity’s original confidential filing with the SEC coincided with a remarkable repricing of their systems as recorded in the CSI data:
By the time the IPO was publicly revealed in October, it was clear that one of the major risk factors facing potential investors was how the U.S. Treasury would treat the question of how SolarCity had valued its systems for purpose of claiming federal tax dollars. A question, which we would note, still remains to be fully answered but the preliminary indications are not good for SolarCity and its existing investors. For example, SolarCity revealed that for a limited number of systems, Treasury had reduced the allowable price per Watt from $6.87 to $6.00 for California systems and from $6.20 to $5.00 for Arizona - reductions of 12.6% and 19.3% respectively. When applied to the $341 million SolarCity says it has claimed so far, that could be a $43 million haircut.
As of this writing, SolarCity is now saying it will go forward with a revised offering at $8/share - down nearly 43% from the midpoint of its earlier proposed range of $13-15. Stay tuned, this story is far from over.
In an election year it was not surprising that some echoes of that contest found their way into the posts for this blog. One interesting point was the survey data about the popularity of solar among voters. Didn’t really matter what your party affiliation, solar beat out all other forms of energy - heck, solar was more popular than chocolate!
Not that you could guess that based on some of the press coverage of the industry which seemed to have only ever heard of one solar company - Solyndra!
But voters’ belief in solar included putting taxpayer money behind it. A full 64% of all voters - and an even more impressive 67% of the much courted “swing voters” - supported tax subsidies and other financial incentives for solar. (By contrast, only 8% of all voters supported continuing subsidies for the coal industry.)
One of the most written about topics on this blog has been the struggle to bring PACE financing to reality. PACE - an acronym for Property Assessed Clean Energy - is a program that allows a property owner to finance a solar project by annual property tax payments. PACE was all set to go in the residential market when Fanny and Freddy balked in the aftermath of the 2008 mortgage bubble crash.
But there is good news as the program has been revived for commercial property owners in LA County (and some surrounding counties as well). The county launched a website and interested potential clients can learn more about the program there. We are looking forward to doing our first PACE project in 2013.
Most residential and commercial solar systems make use of net metering - that is, the method by which a solar customer gets credit for excess energy produced by their system during peak output versus the amount of energy actually purchased off the grid. Those numbers are “netted out” and the customer pays if they are a net consumer and is given a payment (tiny though it may be) if they are a net producer. Good deal all around, yes?
Well, not so much, apparently, if you are a utility. Utilities in the state, particularly PG&E, have been trying to severely limit the number of solar power systems subject to net metering. But in an important victory for the solar industry, last June the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that PG&E’s proposed way of measuring that cap was incorrect and in so doing, substantially increased the number of systems that California residents and businesses will be able to install.
The utilities did get something in return, however, a study to be performed this coming year to assess the costs and benefits of “various levels of [net metering] implementation." This will be a very important study and it may well have far reaching impacts on the growth of solar in California. Needless to say, the solar industry will need to be heavily involved in monitoring this process as it is certain that the utilities and their lobbyists will be pushing hard to get a result in their favor.
One of the frustrations of running a solar company is that there are potential clients out there for whom their own solar power system simply cannot work. Their roof might be all wrong, or the shading from surrounding trees simply cannot be overcome. Or they might be renters, or a commercial business with a relatively small, weak, roof that doesn’t match their load. Whatever the case, but way more often than we like, we simply have to say no.
Community Solar - the goal of SB 843 - could go a long way toward solving that problem. Under a Community Solar program, a system developer could sell shares in the output of the system to any customer of the utility where the project is located. Those customers could purchase just the amount that they needed, unconstrained by the happenstance of roofs, or landlords, or loads. The system provides its power directly to the grid, and the utility bills the customers based on their share of the energy produced (much like the “green energy” that some utilities now allow their customers to purchase).
Up against the end of the legislative session and facing still opposition from the utilities and their allies in the legislature, SB 843 died in September.
The good news is that the bill is slated to be reintroduced next year.
We’d be lying if we didn’t admit that our favorite project this year - at least in terms of coverage on this blog - was our install at the Westridge School for Girls here in Pasadena. Seven different articles chronicled that project from our initial selection, to a series of step-by-step construction stories, to reporting on the accolades that the project garnered for both Westridge and Run on Sun.
Micro-inverter manufacturer Enphase Energy featured the project as one of their Projects of the Week, the City of Pasadena cited the project in selecting Westridge for a Green City award, and Pasadena Weekly put the project on the cover of their annual “Green Issue." Some great PR for a great project with a great client. We look forward to doing it again with the folks at Westridge real soon.
LADWP continues its slow march to rolling out a FiT and our #4 post detailed the latest status update from DWP. Alas, we still haven’t seen data from the demonstration project released and as near as we can tell, the “standard” contracts for those approved projects are still being finalized long past the October-November timeline that was announced with this update.
Will this program roll-out in January as scheduled? Seems unlikely, but stay tuned!
Voters in California put their votes where the polls said they would be - supporting Proposition 39 that would greatly increase funding for energy efficiency and green energy projects with 60% of the vote.
Amidst rumors of possible legal challenges, the fight over, and potential implementation of, Prop 39 will be one of the big solar stories in 2013.
Mega-home builder Centex of the Pulte Group has a problem with some of its highly-touted “solar homes” - the homeowners cannot use their solar power systems because of faulty roofing tiles that threaten to catch on fire. The manufacturer has gone out of business and while Centex has said that they will pay for repairs, they are asking homeowners to sign a pernicious release that could leave them exposed if there are problems with the repair down the road.
After we originally wrote about the problem, we were contacted by one of the homeowners asking for our help. We got Centex to admit that they might conceivably waive the release requirement but apparently only if the homeowner is willing/able to push back - hard. Frankly, we think that Centex should just step up and do the right thing - but if they are unwilling to do so, we sure would like to see the authorities provide whatever extra encouragement is needed.
Despite only being published a short time, this story jumped to be our second most popular post of the year and it would make our year to be able to report that this ultimately has a happy ending. We’re still waiting.
Once again, our most popular post for the year was our annual examination of the Outliers and Oddities as determined by analyzing the CSI data for the first half of the year. Since it was published on September 6th, it has racked up more than 4,000 views!
Of all that we reported on in this very lengthy (2795 words - yikes!) post, perhaps the most troubling was what we documented with this graph:
This graph shows how the extraordinary delays in installing systems by industry-giant SolarCity is retarding the progress of the industry in meeting consumer needs and in protecting the environment. Word to the wise, bigger isn’t necessarily better and “free” may not be all that it is cracked up to be!
That’s our recap on the year - our best year ever. We are really excited for 2013 as the economy continues to improve and we finally have the uncertainty of the past twelve months behind us, we are expecting great things from the year ahead. And, of course, you can continue to expect our mostly informed, somewhat irreverent take on all things solar. Thanks for your support and encouragement - especially you, Vick!
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) just approved a modified rate case for Southern California Edison (SCE) that will guarantee rate increases for the next three years. According to an article discussing the decision by Marc Lifsher in the LA Times, SCE’s rates will increase on average by 5% this year. But that is just the start of the bad news for SCE ratepayers - SCE’s rates will increase by 6.3% for next year and by an additional 5.9% in 2014!
According to a press release put out by the CPUC, SCE has twenty days to file new tariffs with the CPUC which will become effective immediately.
For a commercial SCE customer who presently pays roughly $10,000/month, they can expect to be paying $11,720/month once the three rate increases take effect - an increase of more than $20,000/year.
There can be no doubt that comparable - or higher - rate increases will continue. Adding a solar power system to your business or home is easily the best hedge that you can have against such one-way cost increases. Give us a call (626-793-6025) or click on that big Sun on the right and let’s get started today at putting you in charge of your energy future.