US-Solargesetzgebung - ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[meinolf67]

..ein weiterer Meta-Thread zu meinem Haupthema Solarenergie:

Die USA sind potentiell der mit weitem Abstand größte Solarmarkt der Welt, aber bisher -nicht zuletzt dank George Dabbeljuh- WEIT, WEIT hinter ihren Möglichkeiten zurückgeblieben.


Seit geraumer Zeit wird über verschiedenste Gesetzesvorhaben zur Incentivierung nachgegrübelt, aber bisher gab es keinen Durchbruch.


Ein Posting in einem anderen Thread gab mir jetzt den Anstoß, mich mal direkt mit den Texten solcher Entwürfe zu befassen. Sehr interessant.

Offenbar wurde am Donnerstag eine Version von HR3221 im Senat durchgewunken, nachdem dort bisher immer Schluß war. Das KÖNNTE ein echter Durchbruch gewesen sein; leider reicht meine Verständnis der legislativen Prozesse dort nicht zu einem eigenen fundierten Urteil.

Deswegen: kann mir jemand helfen?

Unabhängig davon werde ich einige Passagen hier reinstellen, wel sie doch neu sind (z.B. Strategische Solar-Reserve)...

[meinolf67]

SEC. 7304. ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC SOLAR RESERVES ON FEDERAL LANDS.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to establish a pilot program for the development of strategic solar reserves on Federal lands for the advancement, development, assessment, and installation of commercial solar electric energy systems.

(b) Strategic Solar Reserve Pilot Program-

(1) SITE SELECTION- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Defense, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, States, tribal, or local units of governments, as appropriate, affected utility industries, and other interested persons, shall complete the following:

(A) Identify Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, subject to valid existing rights, that are suitable and feasible for the installation of solar electric energy systems sufficient to create a solar energy reserve of no less than 4 GW and no more than 25 GW.

(B) Perform any environmental reviews that may be required to complete the designation of such solar reserves.

(C) Incorporate the designated solar reserves into the relevant agency land use and resource management plans or equivalent plans.

(D) Identify the needed transmission upgrades to the solar reserves.

(2) MINIMUM POWER OF SITES- Each site identified as suitable and feasible for the installation of solar electric energy systems shall be sufficient for the installation of at least 1 GW.

(3) LANDS NOT INCLUDED- The following Federal lands shall not be included within a strategic solar reserve site:

(A) Components of the National Landscape Conservation System.

(B) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

(4) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PILOT PROGRAM FOR STRATEGIC SOLAR RESERVES-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and following the completion of the requirements under paragraph (1)(B), shall expeditiously implement a strategic solar reserve pilot program in order to issue rights-of-way on land identified under paragraph (1)(A) to produce no less than 4 GW and no more than 25 GW of solar electric power from that land.

(B) CRITERIA FOR APPLICATIONS- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish criteria for approving applications to obtain rights-of-way on land under this paragraph based, in part, on the proposed solar electric energy technologies proposed to be used on such rights-of-way.

(C) VARIETY OF TECHNOLOGIES- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall provide for a variety of solar electric energy technologies to be used on rights-of-way on land under this paragraph.

(D) MILESTONES- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall develop milestones for activities on rights-of-way on land under this paragraph to ensure due diligence in the development of such land.

(5) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE- The Secretary of the Interior shall complete all necessary environmental surveys, compliance, and permitting for rights-of-way pursuant to title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for each strategic solar reserve, as expeditiously as possible. Each applicant shall pay all costs of environmental compliance, including when a determination is made that the land that is the subject of the application is not suitable and feasible for installation or the bid is withdrawn following the initiation of such environmental compliance.

(6) PERMITS- The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that all strategic solar reserve installations pursuant to this section are permitted using an expedited permitting process. The Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, complete the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement by the Departments of Energy and the Interior for purposes of this section.

(7) RENTAL FEE; RIGHT-OF-WAY TERM-

(A) RENTAL FEE- The rental fee for each strategic solar reserve right-of-way under this subsection shall be in the amount of $300 per acre per year for the initial 10-year period, except that the rental fee shall be phased-in for a right-of-way during the initial 3 years after the signing of the right-of-way authorization. For the first year the rental fee shall be 25 percent of that amount. For the second year the rental fee shall be 50 percent of that amount. For the third year and each year thereafter the fee shall be 100 percent of that amount, except that the rental fee after the initial 10-year period shall be adjusted by the Secretary of the Interior according to the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator each year for the remainder of the term of the right-of-way authorization. The rental fee shall be paid in annual payments commencing on the day the right-of-way authorization is signed. The rental fee established by this paragraph shall apply to all solar electric projects that have pending applications with the Bureau of Land Management as of June 1, 2007.

(B) TERM- Each right-of-way authorization shall be effective for an initial term of 30 years. Such term may be extended by the Secretary of the Interior for periods of 10 years.

(8) REPORT TO CONGRESS- The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall submit a report to Congress on the findings of the pilot program--

(A) not later than 3 years after the installation of the first facility pursuant to this section; and

(B) 10 years after the installation of the first facility pursuant to this section.

(c) Buy American Act- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any equipment used on lands included within a strategic solar reserve site must be American-made, as that term is used in the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).

(d) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (b)(7), the authorities contained in this section shall expire 10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[meinolf67]

WENN das jetzt DURCHGEHT, wäre das der Knaller:

SEC. 11003. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF ENERGY CREDIT.

(a) Extension of Credit-

(1) SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY- Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and (3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) (relating to energy credit) are each amended by striking `January 1, 2009' and inserting `January 1, 2017'.

(2) FUEL CELL PROPERTY- Subparagraph (E) of section 48(c)(1) (relating to qualified fuel cell property) is amended by striking `December 31, 2008' and inserting `December 31, 2016'.

(b) Allowance of Energy Credit Against Alternative Minimum Tax- Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) (relating to specified credits) is amended by striking `and' at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting `, and', and by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(v) the credit determined under section 46 to the extent that such credit is attributable to the energy credit determined under section 48.'.

(c) Increase of Credit Limitation for Fuel Cell Property- Subparagraph (B) of section 48(c)(1) is amended by striking `$500' and inserting `$1,500'.

(d) Public Electric Utility Property Taken Into Account-

(1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (3) of section 48(a) is amended by striking the second sentence thereof.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(A) Paragraph (1) of section 48(c) is amended by striking subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D).

(B) Paragraph (2) of section 48(c) is amended by striking subparagraph (D) and redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D).

(e) Clerical Amendments- Paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of section 48(c) are each amended by striking `paragraph (1)' and inserting `subsection (a)'.

(f) Effective Date-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) ALLOWANCE AGAINST ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX- The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to credits determined under section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act and to carrybacks of such credits.

(3) INCREASE IN LIMITATION FOR FUEL CELL PROPERTY- The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date, under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).

(4) PUBLIC ELECTRIC UTILITY PROPERTY- The amendments made by subsection (d) shall apply to periods after June 20, 2007, in taxable years ending after such date, under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).

[Blue Max]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.437 von meinolf67 am 14.04.08 17:23:59

#1

Wieviel Solarenergie gibt es eigentlich in Saudi-Arabien, Dubai, Iran usw, wo doch dort jeden Tag die Sonne scheint ?

Oder ist denen die Umwelt etwa völlig egal ?

[meinolf67]

ERSTENS glaube ich tatsächlich, daß es denen noch mehr "egal" ist.

ZWEITENS, gravierender ist die Bevölkerungszahl, und dort liegen die USA wohl vorne...

[meinolf67]

Und der hier würde die Beschränkung für Privathaushalte -vielleicht- aufheben:

SEC. 11006. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION AND ALLOWANCE AGAINST ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR AND FUEL CELL PROPERTY CREDIT.

(a) Repeal of Maximum Dollar Limitation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 25D (relating to limitations) is amended to read as follows:

`(b) Certification of Solar Water Heating Property- No credit shall be allowed under this section for an item of property described in subsection (d)(1) unless such property is certified for performance by the non-profit Solar Rating Certification Corporation or a comparable entity endorsed by the government of the State in which such property is installed.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(A) Subsection (e) of section 25D is amended by striking paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (9) as paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively.

(B) Paragraph (1) of section 25C(e) is amended by striking `(8), and (9)' and inserting `and (8) (and paragraph (4) as in effect before its repeal by the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007)'.

(b) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (c) of section 25D is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax; Carryforward of Unused Credit-

`(1) LIMITATION BASED ON AMOUNT OF TAX- In the case of a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the credit allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--

`(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over

`(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable year.

`(2) CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED CREDIT-

`(A) RULE FOR YEARS IN WHICH ALL PERSONAL CREDITS ALLOWED AGAINST REGULAR AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX- In the case of a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) applies, if the credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by section 26(a)(2) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.

`(B) RULE FOR OTHER YEARS- In the case of a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, if the credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(A) Section 23(b)(4)(B) is amended by inserting `and section 25D' after `this section'.

(B) Section 24(b)(3)(B) is amended by striking `and 25B' and inserting `, 25B, and 25D'.

(C) Section 25B(g)(2) is amended by striking `section 23' and inserting `sections 23 and 25D'.

(D) Section 26(a)(1) is amended by striking `and 25B' and inserting `25B, and 25D'.

(c) Effective Dates-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply to expenditures made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) ALLOWANCE AGAINST ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX-

(A) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(B) APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET- The amendments made by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the provisions of such Act to which such amendments relate.

[meinolf67]

Das Kernproblem, das ich habe, ist daß ich die konkurrierende Gesetzgebung zuischen Senat und House of Representatives nicht verstehe: beide können ähnliche Gesetzte eingebracht und verabschiedet haben, aber trotzdem treten sie nicht unbedingt in Kraft.


Bisher war es wohl so, dass die Dem's immer wieder Bills durch das HoR gebracht haben, aber dann im Senat gescheitert sind.

Deswegen meine Aufregung über diese Meldung...

[meinolf67]

Der Link zum Selberlesen...:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3221" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3221

[Blue Max]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.508 von meinolf67 am 14.04.08 17:31:04

#5

Ach, haben die USA neuerdings mehr Einwohner als Indien oder China ?

Oder scheint in Indien etwa weniger die Sonne als in Kalifornien ?

[Astralblue]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.553 von meinolf67 am 14.04.08 17:36:35

dann kauf evergreen solar

[meinolf67]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.565 von Blue Max am 14.04.08 17:37:41

nein, habe sie nicht, aber mehr Kaufkraft...

In Arabien gibts sehr viel Geld und wenig Bevölkerung, in Indien und China sehr viele Leute, aber wenig Kaufkraft; in den USA gibt es beides.



Was ist Dein Problem?

Ich versuche doch nur, eine Diskussion zu einer sehr spezifischen Frage zu führen und würde mich über Auseinandersetzungen zum Thema freuen.

[Blue Max]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.568 von Astralblue am 14.04.08 17:38:04

#10

Kauft lieber EON und RWE. Da stimmen wenigstens Rendite und Dividende.

Aussserdem sorgen die für Qualitätsstrom aus deutschen Landen...

[meinolf67]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.568 von Astralblue am 14.04.08 17:38:04

Habe ich längst, aber das hat wenig mit diesem speziellen Punkt zu tun.


Erstens gibt es andere starke US-Firmen (z.B. Sunpower) und zweitens -wichtiger- geht es primär nicht nach dem Herkunftsland eines Anbieters, sondern nach seiner Stärke im Markt. Und da haben derzeit noch andere die Nase vorn...

Trotzdem habe ich die ESLR-Posi wegen der interessanten Technologie.

Wollte hier auch keine Aktientipps austauschen...

[meinolf67]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.692 von Blue Max am 14.04.08 17:49:25

OK, hab' mir Dein Profil und ein paar Deiner Postings angesehen und verstanden...

[meinolf67]

Senate adds renewable energy tax credit to housing bill

Nick Snow
Washington Editor

WASHINGTON, DC, Apr. 10 -- The US Senate approved an extension of renewable and alternative energy financial incentives as an amendment to a housing bill, HR 3221, by 88 to 8 votes on Apr. 10. The provision contains language identical to a bill that Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) introduced earlier in the week.

The provision differs from one in HR 5351, which the House approved on Feb. 27, because it would not be paid for by denying $18 billion of tax relief to major oil companies.

Its inclusion was appropriate in a housing bill that aims to prevent excessive home foreclosures, Cantwell said following the vote. "The renewable and efficiency industries have been soaring, creating thousands of jobs and diversifying our energy supply. Newspaper headlines across the country have pointed to our country's rising unemployment and declines in the manufacturing and construction sectors," she said.

"One thing we can do to help Americans avoid foreclosure on their homes is to help them keep their jobs. By extending these tax incentives, we are not only providing certainty to these industries, infusing money into our economy, but creating high-paying, long-term jobs to help Americans get through these tough economic times," Cantwell said.

According to Ensign, the amendment would extend the place-in-service deadline through 2009 for the production tax credit that encourages electricity production from geothermal, wind, biomass, hydropower, and other renewable sources. It also would extend the solar and fuel investment tax credit for 8 years, he said.

"Today, we're hostage to skyrocketing energy prices. That's why it's so important that our bill is signed into law," Ensign said. "Without action, key incentives expire and much development toward renewable energy will slow. In some instances, it could stop. We only have a small window of time to provide the certainty needed to continue investing in, producing, and developing renewable energy," he said.

Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), ranking minority member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said while some members of Congress have advocated paying for a renewable energy tax credit extension with specific offsets, he believes that such taxes wouldn't be needed because the renewable energy tax credits will stimulate the economy.

"While I would prefer a longer term extension of the production tax credit, I am nevertheless pleased that the Senate was able to come together and craft this bipartisan measure," Domenici said.

[Nannsen]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.881.761 von meinolf67 am 14.04.08 17:57:21

Danke meinolf, für die bisherigen sehr interessanten beiträge.
Diese haben als anleger und amerikafreud mein interesse geweckt, weil hier tatsächlich die gleiche entwicklung bei börsennotierten solarenergiefirmen bevorstehen könnte, wie wir es in deutschland gesehen haben.

Die usa haben verschiedene klimazonen und den raum, um dies ohne subventionen bei noch höheren ölpreise alleine hinzubekommen und damit profitabel zu werden. Es könnte dort der absolute hype werden

zusätzlich ergibt sich die möglichkeit bald bei ca. 1,68 in den unterbewerteten dollar einzusteigen.

Welche solarfirmen hast du in den usa im auge???

[meinolf67]

hiernach ist es nur ein Jahr Verlängerung...:

Policy Roundup: U.S. Senate Passes Incentives
The Senate passes a bill extending renewable-energy tax credits, after previously failing twice to extend the credits. Meanwhile, New York City's congestion plan dies, Mayor Bloomberg proposes 2-megawatt solar project and China aims to double its renewable-energy use.
by: Jennifer Kho
Bullet Arrow April 11, 2008

April has been a month full of ups and downs for greentech policy so far.

In a big win for the U.S. industry, the Senate on Thursday passed a housing stimulus bill that also extends renewable-energy production tax credits for one year and investment tax credits for solar-energy and fuel-cell projects for eight years.
Advertisement

Two U.S. senators, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and John Ensign, R-Nev., introduced the proposal last week (see Solar Roundup: Another Tax-Credit Proposal).

"The Senate has recognized the urgency of taking timely action to extend these incentives," said Gregory Wetstone, senior director of government and public affairs at the American Wind Energy Association, in a written statement. "We look forward now to working with our many friends in the U.S. House of Representatives to move this bill forward…. Every day of delay tolls a greater risk on investments in new clean-energy projects and manufacturing facilities."

The Senate had previously failed to approve extensions for the credits, which are set to expire at the end of this year (see Renewable Tax Incentive Still At Risk, President Signs Energy Bill and Senate Rejects Green Incentives to Pass Energy Bill).

A group of 154 businesses and organizations delivered letters to the Senate on Tuesday claiming that a failure to extend the credits could put 116,000 jobs and $19 billion of investments at risk.

The bill also authorizes $400 million of clean-energy bonds and extends credits for energy-efficient appliances, homes and commercial buildings.

The House of Representatives still needs to approve the bill before the extensions become official. The House previously has approved bills that extended the credits, which were then rejected by the Senate.

Also in the United States, Maryland’s General Assembly passed a bill to boost its renewable portfolio standard to 20 percent by 2022. Its previous goal was to get 9.5 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022. Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to sign the bill into law before the end of May.

The state also set a goal of reducing its per-capital electricity consumption 15 percent by 2015 and created a strategic energy investment fund, funded by the state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, to increase energy efficiency, according to Renewable Energy World.

In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan to charge between $8 and $21 for cars entering midtown Manhattan died last week when Democrats in the State Assembly decided not to bring the plan to the Assembly floor (see Green Light post).

But the mayor is still pursuing an environmental agenda. On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported Bloomberg hopes to put 2 megawatts of solar panels on city-owned buildings in all five boroughs. The plan is not a done deal, according to Dow Jones, which reported that the city’s electric utility, Consolidated Edison, is limited to accepting 10 kilowatts of solar, which might not be enough to accept the 2-megawatt project.

In California, a group has introduced a ballot initiative that would boost the state's renewable-energy target from 33 percent by 2020 to 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025, according to the Los Angeles Times. But a number of environmental groups oppose the plan, which they say is riddled with loopholes, the newspaper reported (also see this post by The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog).

The Golden State also has continued its years-long fight with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over whether it can restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles. Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Wednesday subpoenaed documents related to the EPA's decision to deny a waiver that would have allowed the state to set its own standards (see Looking for Answers from the EPA and EPA Rejects California Vehicle-Emissions Standards).

News outside the United States also was mixed.

China last week said it would double its renewable-energy consumption from 2005 to 2010, targeting a goal of 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources.

Meanwhile, German environment minister Sigman Gabriel told Stuttgarter Nachrichten he would withdraw a proposal requiring 10 percent ethanol to be mixed into gasoline by next year, up from 5 percent today, based on reports that more than 2 million cars in Germany wouldn’t be able to run on the blend (see Green Light post).

And on Wednesday, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell said it would stop investing in Europe if the European Union forces heavy polluters to buy emissions credits at a cap-and-trade auction, according to the Times of London. The EU has been considering a proposal that would require oil companies and others to buy 20 percent of their emissions credits -- now free -- at auction starting in 2013, rising to 100 percent by 2020, the newspaper reported.

[meinolf67]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.882.581 von Nannsen am 14.04.08 19:24:22

SPWR, ESLR, ASTI, ENER, FSLR, AKNS, DSTI, ...

dazu in Canada: Timminco, 5NPlus, Day4Energy, Carmanah,...

[meinolf67]

Diesmal scheint es zuerst der Senat gewesen zu sein (aus dem ESLR-CC von gestern):

"...We continue to see strong signs of growth in the U.S. markets. Recently the Senate passed the [Cantwell Incident Amendment;; it’s the housing stimulus bill by 88 to 8 margin. It shows that there’s strong bipartisan support for extending and expanding the federal investment tax credit. It will still need be passed by the House and signed by the President; we are optimistic that some extension will be passed by yearend."

[meinolf67]

Tax break stalemate slows green movement
LOCAL COMPANIES, CITY, U.S. OFFICIALS DISCUSS CHALLENGES
By Matt Nauman
Mercury News
Article Launched: 04/29/2008 01:37:44 AM PDT

Green Energy

* More updates and information

Continued congressional delays over extending tax breaks to solar, wind and other renewable-energy companies could threaten the clean-technology industry's growth and the jobs it creates, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said Monday.

"I've got my finger on the panic button," Reed said while participating in a high-profile panel discussion about the greening of local companies at the Tech Museum of Innovation, "and I'm about to push it. We're going to put our industries in a stall."

The investment tax credits and production tax credits, which expire late this year, are viewed as necessary for renewable-energy companies to compete against traditional energy sources and to make major deals for new projects. The credits cut the costs for companies to add renewable energy systems such as photovoltaic solar, wind turbines and other projects.

The issue remains in a stalemate between the U.S. House and Senate over how the country will pay for them. The Senate recently passed a version of the extension in a housing bill. The House previously passed a bill lowering tax breaks for oil companies and boosting them for solar and wind providers.

Tom McCalmont, president and chief executive of REgrid Power in Campbell, said he's "frustrated" by what is happening in Washington. "It just seems like Congress doesn't get it."

In testimony given earlier this year, Applied Materials' Blair Sweezey said the extension of the renewable tax credit could create
Advertisement
55,000 jobs and generate $45 billion in economic investment in the solar industry across the country. But if the credits weren't renewed, he said, 40,000 jobs could be lost through 2009.

Two lobby groups, the American Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, put the potential U.S. job loss if the credits aren't renewed at 116,000.

Monday's forum, "How Going Green Saves Money, Jobs and Improves Lives," was staged by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, to showcase the environmental progress of big local companies and to let them discuss the challenges they face in going green. Representatives from Sun Microsystems, Google, Intel, Applied Materials and others participated.

Fellow Silicon Valley Rep. Mike Honda, D-Campbell, joined a second panel. About 100 people attended the two-hour session.

Lofgren said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is committed to getting the credits extended. Lofgren called it "must-do" legislation.

"Here's our dilemma: The Senate just wants to borrow more money, and we (the House) want responsible tax policies," she said. "It's sort of a game of chicken between the spendthrifts in the Senate and the responsible House approach."

A temporary, one-year extension of the credits might be the result, she said.

In comments that echoed what the other top environmental executives of Silicon Valley business leaders said, Adobe Systems' Randall Knox touted his company's track record on environmental issues.

For instance, he said, Adobe keeps 87 to 90 percent of its waste out of landfills and 20 percent of its employees telecommute, compared with 4 percent for a typical valley company.

"We're now going global with it," said Knox, senior director of global facilities services at Adobe.

It's important that big companies lead the fight against climate change, said Dave Stangis, Intel's director of corporate responsibility.

"Technology is going to solve this," he said.

[meinolf67]

Last updated May 4, 2008 11:41 p.m. PT
It's time to change a crazy energy policy

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

In the "Alice in Wonderland" environment of today's America, Wall Street refused to be satisfied last week when ExxonMobil reported a first-quarter profit of $10.9 billion, the secondbiggest quarterly profit in U.S. history.

ExxonMobil stock dropped, even though three more such quarters would allow the company to exceed its record $40.61 billion in earnings for 2007.

Our country's energy policy is crazy, with corporate power and political opportunism conspiring to make it more so.

In 2001, the United States imported 57 percent of the oil it consumed. The figure has risen to 67 percent, at a time when instability plagues oilproducing countries, with two major suppliers, Venezuela and Iran, actively hostile to the United States.

The average cost of a gallon of gasoline seven years ago was $1.52. The same figure today, in this corner of the country, is $3.73, with a likely early summer surge to $4 a gallon.

When the Democratic-run Congress passed energy legislation in December, it preserved (under threat of a presidential veto) an estimated $13 billion in credits and subsidies to the energy industry ... meaning, of course, corporate welfare.

At the same time, however, the bill failed to extend tax credits to wind and solar energy that are due to expire in December.

We have a dog in this fight.

The nation's largest wind energy farm is along the Washington-Oregon border between Pasco and Walla Walla. Gov. Chris Gregoire recently approved a major wind energy development in Kittitas County: Wind turbines have already sprouted in the desert steppes above the Columbia River.

On a rainy day in Munich, Germany, last month, I asked a museum guide about the building's solar panels. She replied that the panels were installed as part of the country's long-term (20 years) solar incentive program.

Our federal government spends more in Iraq every day than it does in a year to develop new energy resources.

In a memorable incident, President Bush journeyed to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2006 to underscore his State of the Union message encouraging new technologies.

But the lab had just furloughed 32 employees because of a $28 million budget cut. The Department of Energy quickly found money to put them back on the job for the presidential visit.

In January 2007, Bush was back before Congress calling for a 20 percent cut in gasoline use by 2017, a goal made possible by development of renewable fuels.

The president's budget, released a few days later, again chopped the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's budget, from $187.5 million to $181.5 million.

Congress did, finally, vote last December to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. At the same time, however, it failed to restrict tax write-offs for buyers of gas-guzzling SUVs.

Using the new standards as an excuse, the Bush administration promptly blocked California and 15 other states (ours included) from enacting stiffer mileage standards and measures to curtail tailpipe emissions. The California rules would require the auto industry to meet a fuel efficiency standard of 44 miles per gallon by 2020.

A few officeholders have shown foresight. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., has called for a national commitment equivalent to the lunar Apollo Program to develop new energy resources and liberate America from its addiction to foreign oil.

In most cases, however, politicians are looking no further than the next election -- or the next primary.

The primo pander bears are a pair of presidential candidates -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain.

They have proposed to "suspend" the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax during the summer months.

The suspension would provide minimal help for the average motorist, but creates the illusion that politicians are doing something. Ditto the renewed proposal to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where -- if recoverable reserves are found -- production could not begin for eight to 10 years.

In the meantime, more red ink flows in the federal budget. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in The New York Times, we'll simply get ourselves deeper in hock to the Chinese. We'll go on shipping billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, and bankrolling Venezuela's ruler, Hugo Chavez.

We'll keep expanding the U.S. trade deficit: Oil imports account for one third of it. We'll go on putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. On a 2005 Alaska tour, Clinton and McCain witnessed how global warming is already harming the Arctic.

Everybody, it seems, is looking out for No. 1: Damn the public interest and forget the future.

Exxon Mobil has provided us a particular case-in-point of corporate responsibility. It has spent the past 14 years -- 14 years! -- fighting a federal court jury's decision to award $5 billion in punitive damages to the fishermen, native villages and others harmed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker spill.

An appellate court cut the award in half, but Exxon Mobil has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Questions of law are before the court, but also issues of justice.

[meinolf67]

Solar products makers rise on tax credit optimism
Tuesday May 13, 11:00 am ET
Improving prospects for extension of investment tax credit lifts solar products makers' shares

NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of solar products makers rose Tuesday on improving prospects for a continuation of an investment tax credit that has encouraged investment in the industry.

Citi Investment Research analyst Timothy M. Arcuri, writing in a client note, said his "contacts indicate the House Ways and Means Committee is likely to propose a new bill that will extend most of the credits for at least several years -- longer than the one-year extension that has been discussed to date. The House is hoping to pass a bill before the Memorial Day recess."

Should a bill materialize later this week, it will still need to be voted on by the full House and sent to the Senate where there is no guarantee that it would pass without meaningful revision, the analyst wrote.

Utilities may not benefit, however, as "there is no active, viable legislation that includes language extending the ITC to utilities."

In morning trading, shares of Energy Conversion Devices Inc. rose $2.08, or 4 percent, to $53.70; SunPower Corp. rose $2.61, or 3.1 percent, to $87.10; Evergreen Solar Inc. rose 11 cents to $8.32; and First Solar Inc. rose $11.02, or 3.9 percent, to $296.

[meinolf67]

May 14, 2008, 3:04 pm
House Bill To Extend Solar Credits Likely To Die In Senate
Posted by Eric Savitz

Solar stocks have been rallying on reports that the House this week will approve a bill that includes extensions of tax credits for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass. And while it does appear likely that the measure will pass, there is reason to believe it will get killed off in the Senate in its present form.

Erik Olbeter, a Washington-based analyst with Pacific Crest writes that enthusiasm for the bill is “misplaced,” and represents “a significant negative” for efforts to pass the tax credit package. “Industry representatives and lobbyists were hoping for a much better bill that might be able to muster Republican support in the Senate,” he writes. “This is not that bill.” And he says failure to win passage is a negative for solar companies with exposure to the U.S. market - he cites SunPower (SPWR) and Akeena Solar (AKNS) specifically - and for major wind turbine manufacturers, such as Denmark-based Vestas.

Olbeter says the House Ways and Means Committee will unveil today a tax package that would extend and expand renewable tax credits and reinstate the R&D tax credit; the bill would pay for itself by closing tax loopholes, “including one that allows fund managers to defer taxes on compensation earned from offshore funds and another that would allow multinational firms flexibility in allocating global interest expense.”

Olberter contends that the bill “has virtually no chance, in its current form, of becoming law.” He says the tax loophole closures “are a nonstarter with Senate Republicans and the White House, which opposes taxes generally and these measures specifically.” Olberter says the House is likely to pass the bill along party lines, possible before Memorial Day, but that Senate Republicans will kill the bill it if comes to a floor vote.

Olbeter says this is likely the last meaningful attempt by the Congress to pass extension of renewable energy tax credits before November; he predicts that the solar and wind credits “will probably lapse on December 31.”

Propelled at least in part on investor optimism about the bill, many solar energy stocks are higher today; SPWR is up $5.42, or 6.1% to $94.42, while AKNS is up 50 cents, or 9.4%, to $5.81.

[meinolf67]

19. Mai 2008
New Hampshire and Vermont Renewable Energy Program Updates
New Hampshire & Vermont, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

New Hampshire now has a financial incentive for small renewable energy systems. The bill, HB1628, has passed through the state legislatures and is expected to be signed into law by Governor John Lynch soon.

"This proposal will make solar energy more attractive to homeowners and businesses in Vermont. We are doing everything we can to encourage the adoption of solar energy. It is good for Vermont economically and environmentally."

-- Mary Powell, COO, Green Mountain Power

The bill includes benefits for those who feed electricity into the grid from systems of up to 5-kilowatt (kW). These include payments of US $3/watt up to a maximum payment of $6000, or 50% of system costs, whichever is less, per system. Solar photovoltaic, wind, microhydro and other renewable electricity generating systems built on or after July 1st, 2008 qualify and must be located on the owner's property.

In other news, Green Mountain Power Corp. announced the proposed adoption of solar net-metered electric rates, which are designed to make solar energy an important part of Vermont's mix of cleaner energy sources. The program would work in conjunction with existing net metering' programs in which Vermonters using solar power feed energy back into the grid when it is not needed in the home or business.

Under the new solar rates program, customers would now be paid by Green Mountain Power for all solar energy generated at a rate of US $0.06 per kilowatt-hour above and beyond the nearly US $0.13 per kilowatt-hour net metering benefit. The new incentive rates, if approved by the Vermont Public Service Board, would be available to all Green Mountain Power customers connected to the electric grid.

"This proposal will make solar energy more attractive to homeowners and businesses in Vermont," said Mary Powell, Green Mountain Power's COO. "We are doing everything we can to encourage the adoption of solar energy. It is good for Vermont economically and environmentally."

[meinolf67]

States’ RPS Mandates Justify Lofty Solar Valuations
by: Kamal Ahuja posted on: June 02, 2008 | about stocks: ESLR / FSLR / SPWR

Introduction

Have you opened your electric utility bill lately? Chances are you have noticed the insert sent to you by the utility company that declares their power mix or multiple generating sources that the company utilitizes to bring power to your home or business.

Commonly termed as a portfolio of electrical generating assets (not necessarily all owned by the same utility company), for most investor and publicly owned utilities [IOU/POU] the power mix includes energy generating resources such as natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and of late interest, renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. For example, in 2007, the power mix disclosed for SMUD, a utility company serving the Sacramento metropolitan area, was found to be 60% natural gas resources, 20% large hydroelectric, and 16% eligible renewable resources.

Did you also know that more than half of the States in the US mandate or require that a certain portion of the power mix or a certain percentage of the portfolio of electrical generating assets be comprised of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, or biomass? This requirement stems from a regulatory policy adopted by the individual States called the Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS.
Renewable Portfolio Standard [RPS]

While the RPS is a general policy that places an obligation on electric supply companies to produce a specified fraction of their electricity from renewable energy resources (Wikipedia.org, 2008), most States have adopted individual RPS requirements that a certain percentage of renewable generation or wattage be met by a certain date.

In California for example, RPS mandates require that 20% of the power generation be met from renewable resources by 2010, and further requires 33% RPS generation by the end of the next decade. In Texas, the Public Utility Commission [PUC] boosted the RPS requirement to 5,880 MW from 2,000 MW by the year 2015, and further requires utility companies to create 10,000 MW of renewable energy capacity by 2025 (wikipedia.org, 2008). In New York, the Public Service Commission requires that 24% of the State power portfolio come from renewable resources by 2013 (US DOE, 2008).

Sounds noble, but does it mean anything? Goals, after all, can be rhetorical and soon forgotten like one's New Year's resolutions, right?. Not quite. In California, the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] and the California Energy Commission [CEC] are two joint agencies in charge of implementing and enforcing the RPS program, and can fine individual utility companies for failing to meet RPS goals.
Status Of RPS Generation In California

According to the CEC (Commission), in the past three decades, California has built one of the largest and most diverse renewable energy portfolios in the world. Presently about 11% of the State's electricity comes from renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. However, a key finding by the Commission concluded that utilities are falling short of the RPS goal and are not expected to meet the 20 percent renewables goal by 2010, although they have sufficient quantities under contract (CEC,2007).

As seen in the graph below, the differential between current level renewable production and the 2010 stated goal is an estimated 30,000 Gigawatt hours per year (GWh/yr). This differential further increases to 75,000 GWh/yr in 2020. Assuming that this differential is met primarily by solar, wind, and biomass generating resources in a 40-40-20 proportion, the RPS 2010 goal will create a demand for a combined additional 24,000 GWh/yr from solar and wind alone (or 12,000 GWh/yr for solar and wind each).

click to enlarge


Graph Courtesy of the California Energy Commission (CEC, 2007)

As a worst case scenario, a one megawatt (1 MW) solar/photovoltaic [PV] power plant is capable of producing 2,920 megawatt hours per year [MWh] (1 MW x 365 days / year x 8 hours generation / day). Therefore, to meet the differential demand, additional solar [PV] capacity of 4,100 MW (12,000 GWh/yr x 1,000 MW/GW / 2,920 MWh/1MW) will be required by 2010. And to meet the 2020 goal of 33% RPS renewables, the additional solar [PV] power plant capacity required will be 10,300 MW (75,000 GWh/yr x 40% Solar x 1,000 MW/GW / 2,920 MWh/1MW).

Whether a 40% solar [PV] goal in the RPS power mix is achievable is not a long term concern. Market experts predict that the cost of solar [PV] generation (Bloomberg TV, 2008) will eventually decrease to a level lower than or comparable with coal / natural gas power generation ( < $0.10 kWh). This can also be a foregone conclusion as PV solar panel producers such as Evergreen Solar (ESLR), Sunpower (SPWR), and First Solar (FSLR) ramp up production capacities to capture economies of scale and leverage their fixed costs. I believe that may be the reason why many IOUs are not stepping up to the RPS goal; they may be holding on to invest when solar [PV] generation costs come down further.
RPS Beneficiaries and Valuations

ESLR, SPWR, and FSLR are three domestic, integrated solar panel [PV] producers amongst a host of other international companies that I believe could all be beneficiaries of RPS mandates. These are also companies that I follow. While SPWR and ESLR have retracted from their early year highs, they still trade at lofty sales multiples of 7 and 16, and forward earnings (FY09) multiples of 24.3 and 22.6, respectively.

Consensus revenue and earnings estimates for SPWR are doubling YOY, with FY08 revenue expected to be $1.36 billion (up from $775 million in FY07), and mean EPS estimate at $2.17/share (up from $1.26 in FY07) (Yahoo! Finance, 2008). With momentum in earnings and revenue growth, I expect SPWR to meet mean analyst price target estimates of $114.

ESLR, on the other hand, recently announced (Smart Money, 2008) the signing of sales contracts to supply solar panels worth $1 billion between 2008 and 2013, and holds another backlog of $850 million from previously signed contracts in 2006/07. While cash flows from operations and earnings are negative, the company is expected to turn profitable in 2009. ESLR share price moves in tandem with sector peers (see chart below). The mean analyst price target for ESLR is $14 (Yahoo! Finance, 2008).


At 32 times sales, FSLR trades at what I believe is a "cautionary" valuation. Since the inception of its IPO in November 2006 at $24, the return on FSLR has been more than ten-fold and reminiscent of internet-era boom stocks.

However, of the three companies mentioned in this article, FSLR is the one that is highly profitable with the largest profit margin (31.5%) and return on assets/equity ratios of 11.4% and 26.1%,respectively. I also believe that FSLR forward P/E (FY09) of 46.7 may be moderately expensive, and a short-term correction on valuation concerns is possible. FY08 analyst consensus revenue and earnings estimates for FSLR (Yahoo! Finance, 2008) are expected to be $1.03 billion (up from $504 million in FY07), and mean EPS estimate at $2.93/share (up from $2 in FY07).

With similar momentum in revenue and earnings growth as SPWR, I expect FSLR to also meet mean analyst price target estimates of $330.

Conclusions

To meet their RPS obligations, investor and public owned utilities in States like California will need to build an additional 4,000 - 10,000 MW solar [PV] capacity in the coming decade. The nationwide RPS requirement could additionally create a tremendous demand shift in electrical generation from traditional fossil fuel resources such as coal and natural gas to solar and wind energy. Solar [PV] generation could also take the place of fossil fueled resources as aged power plant production is taken offline.

The RPS has created a terrific opportunity for all market participants, especially new alternative energy players such as ESLR, SPWR, and FSLR. With industry changing dynamics and these companies in hyper growth mode, the exorbitant valuations are likely to be sustainable and presently justifiable. Furthermore, if America has to meet self-sufficiency in energy production and generation with net reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, it must adhere to RPS mandates and targets.

[meinolf67]

Solar to provide 10% of U.S. electricity by 2025 – study
18 June 2008 | Market Watch: News

* Most popular
* Most recent

ARISE Technologies fast-tracks production in record time - 05 June 2008
Best Solar to invest $2.5 billion for 1GW thin-film capacity in 2010 - 16 June 2008
Hyundai enters solar cell manufacturing - orders five 50MW lines from centrotherm - 10 June 2008
Sharp claims solar cell efficiency of 14.4% - 06 June 2008
IBM and TOK team on CIGS thin-film materials and processes; target 15% efficiencies - 16 June 2008
Solar Semiconductor wins module certification from TUV Rheinland - 18 June 2008
€2 billion in revenues “Business as usual” says Q-Cells CEO - 18 June 2008
Far West Rice installs 1MW solar power system - 18 June 2008
German solar company SMA Solar Technology to raise up to 150 mln euros in IPO - 18 June 2008
REC to invest 13 billion crowns in new manufacturing plant in Singapore - 18 June 2008
Solar & PV Tech jobs
Subscribe to newsletter
Subscribe to print edition
Add PV Tech to your Google homepage

SolarA new study by clean-tech research publisher Clean Edge and Co-op America, a non-profit green-economy organization, has suggested that the U.S. could attain production of 10% of its electricity requirements via solar power by the year 2025. The Utility Solar Assessment (USA) study provides a roadmap for use by utilities and regulators, as well as solar power companies, which outlines the necessity for involvement of utilities in scaling solar power in order to reach the 10% goal.

The study claims that solar power should be viewed as a cost-effective measure of electricity generation that can rival current electricity costs while steering away from the use of fossil fuels that are becoming more and more costly every day. The data in the study were compiled based on interviews with more than 30 solar, utility, financial, and policy experts.

Projections for solar energy prices are expected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015. A further decrease in cost to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) is anticipated by 2025, according to the study.

A comprehensive “to-do” list was provided for each of the players (utilities, solar companies, regulators), outlining the steps that need to be taken by each in order to contribute to the combined effort and thereby to achieve the 10% goal by 2025. Further information on the study is available here.

[SLGramann]

Auf Bundesebene weiterhin alles unklar:


Congressional stalemate over renewable energy

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

(06-18) 04:00 PDT Washington - --

Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year.

The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.

The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed.

"It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said.

The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.

House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.

The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by cutting subsidies to big oil companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.

Last month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward.

The delay is putting at risk a boom in renewable energy projects in recent years that has the potential to remake the nation's energy supply.

There are currently 22 major solar power plants nationwide in the planning phase, many of them in Southern California, but all those deals were signed based on the assumption Congress would extend the solar energy tax incentives. Already, the Spanish engineering firm Abengoa, which is planning the largest concentrated solar power plant in the country 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, has said the plant won't be built if the tax credits expire.
Potentially huge loss

If the program lapses, "It will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar," warned Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Many Bay Area tech firms and investors have poured money into renewable energy projects, and have a great deal at stake in the debate. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and TechNet, two leading technology industry trade groups, have been among the most vocal advocates for extending the credits.

Santa Clara-based Applied Materials, a giant in the semiconductor industry, has developed a $3 billion business over the last two years selling high-tech tools to solar panel manufacturers, including new equipment that can make thin-film solar photovoltaics the size of garage doors.

But William Morin, director of government affairs for Applied Materials, said that without a steady policy of tax incentives most manufacturing will continue to go overseas to countries like Germany, which is now both the world's leading consumer and producer of solar power.

"We are in danger of falling behind because we don't have the right set of public policies in place to take that leading role," Morin said.
Happened before in 2004

Many renewable energy providers have seen this script before: Congress let a production tax credit for wind energy lapse three times over a decade. When it expired in 2004, investments in wind projects plummeted by 77 percent the next year.

The wind industry has since rebounded, with the help of new tax credits, and had investments totaling more than $9 billion last year, up more than double since 2006. At least 17 wind manufacturing facilities have been announced in the United States since 2007, according to Greg Wetstone, senior director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association.

But Wetstone added, "It's hard to get manufacturers to be willing to make that investment if they don't know for sure if the market is going to be there or if the tax policy is going to change in six months."

Ron Kenedi, vice president of Huntington Beach-based Sharp Solar, a leading producer of solar cells, said his company had planned to expand its 230-worker manufacturing plant in Memphis, but is waiting for a decision on the tax credits.

"It's a shame," Kenedi said after Tuesday's vote. "We are ready to grow. We are ready to add hundreds of jobs if this law gets passed."
Consumer threat, too

The bill could have an impact on consumers, too. Installing solar panels to power an American home costs about $25,000, but after state and federal tax incentives, a California homeowner would likely pay closer to $16,000.

Kenedi said a system could pay itself off over seven to 10 years, but he fears some consumers may decide to delay investing in solar if the federal solar tax credit for homeowners lapses.
Expiring wind and solar tax credits

If Congress doesn't act soon, many federal credits that have fueled the rapid growth of wind and solar energy in recent years will expire at the end of this year. Here are some of the key programs that would be affected:

Solar investment tax credit: The government now pays 30 percent of the cost to businesses to invest in solar power to meet their energy needs. Cost to extend for 10 years: $1.7 billion.

Residential energy-efficient property tax credit: Residential users also get a 30 percent tax credit for installing solar panels, geothermal heat pumps or small wind equipment. The tax credit, however, has a limit of $2,000, which lawmakers are trying to raise. Cost to extend for 10 years: $907 million.

Renewable energy production tax credit: This program gives wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources a leg up with a 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour credit, which makes them more competitive with natural gas or coal-fired power plants. Congress has let the tax credit lapse before, and each time investment in wind and other renewable energy projects dropped. Cost to extend for one year: $7 billion.
California incentives for solar power

California and two dozen other states have adopted renewable portfolio standards, requiring utilities to get a large share of their power from renewable energy. California is on track to get 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2010.

The state, as part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Million Solar Roofs program, provides businesses and consumers with tax incentives that industry experts say can defray about one-third of the cost of installing solar power. The state also offers incentives for home builders to install solar panels on homes, and for utilities to shift to solar power. Cost over 10 years: $3.3 billion (through 2017)

For more information on California's program, go to: www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov.

Source: California Energy Commission

E-mail Zachary Coile at [e-mail].

[meinolf67]

Daniel Englander
The Investment Tax Credit Fails… Again June 17, 2008 at 2:49 PM

A motion to break the Republican filibuster in the Senate against the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008 failed this afternoon by eight votes. The EITRA contains an eight-year, $17 billion extension for renewable energy tax credits, which are due to expire in December 2008. Among the bill’s components are relief from the alternative minimum tax for families and business installing solar panels, a doubling of the credit cap for residential solar to $4,000, and a proposal to prevent utilities from taking up the credits directly. The same bill was blocked on June 10, though Democrats have picked up two votes in favor since then.

Republicans, of which only five voted in favor of cloture, objected to what they deemed tax relief for some at the expense of tax increases for others. Kind of. Democrats proposed to pay for the ITC extensions by delaying the introduction of a tax deferral scheme for hedge fund managers and multinationals making offshore profits. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “if Senate Republicans continue to maintain the preposterous fiction that closing a tax loophole for multimillionaires amounts to a violation of fundamental principle, you will be denying tax relief to millions of middle-class Americans in the process.” You’ll also be killing hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars in future investment for renewable energy companies and putting at stake thousands of current and potential jobs, as well asthe growth of a burgeoning domestic industry.

U.S. companies are already making alternate investment decisions based on ITC’s imminent failure. SunPower CEO Tom Werner said at the beginning of the month, “if the ITC doesn’t happen, we can move our business elsewhere and make up for that. Is that a preferred solution? No. Does America lose jobs with that? Yes. But can we as a company hit ‘08 and ‘09 without the ITC? Yes.” Werner expects policy expansions in other countries to be able to absorb the company’s possible move out of the U.S., though his stark warning is “not to suggest it would be easy, it’s to suggest we’re prepared to do that.” Other, smaller companies may not be as prepared.

[meinolf67]

Senate Again Squashes Solar Investment Tax Credit
in News Departments > New & Noteworthy
by SI Staff on Wednesday 18 June 2008
email the content item print the content item

Just a week after failing to move the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 into formal debate, the U.S. Senate has once again blocked the extension of the solar investment tax credit by squashing the progress of H.R.6049, the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act.

The Senate failed on a cloture motion to proceed to the act by vote of 52-44. Majority Leader Harry Reid voted "no" to retain procedural control and immediately filed for cloture, which allows him to bring the vote up again today. However, it is uncertain if and when the legislation will be reconsidered.

"I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisan consensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward," says Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

"Time is running out. I strongly urge the Senate to reach a bipartisan consensus and pass this legislation," he adds.

[Kubanisch_Rauchen]

test

[meinolf67]

This Week in Solar
By Toby Shute June 27, 2008 Comments (0)

4 Recommendations

Well, it's been a pretty rough week for the broader market, and solar stocks like Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE) and Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL) have dimmed in the eyes of panicky investors. Let's check out the week's news and see if there's a sunny side to things.

There was indeed a smattering of positive press. One item is that Japan has supposedly begun to reconsider its stance on subsidies. The phase-out of state support for solar has knocked Sharp off its production pedestal. The electronics outfit is now running behind Germany's Q-Cells in terms of solar cell output, though still comfortably in the top three, along with Suntech Power (NYSE: STP).

There was also a bullish projection issued by market watcher iSuppli, which called for 12 gigawatts of photovoltaic cell production by 2010. Beyond that we have the ramp-up of Energy Conversion Devices' (Nasdaq: ENER) Uni-Solar subsidiary to hit gigawatt scale in the 2012 timeframe, just in time for grid parity. Yep, iSuppli is calling for solar to be competitive in sunny locales by 2012 and in medium-sunny spots in 2018.

In my eyes, though, the top story is the Bureau of Land Management's decision to place a moratorium on applications for new solar power plant installations on public land in six western states. Even though this decision came weeks ago, it's just now hitting my desk. I regret not catching this sooner.

I'm not the only one to get blind-sided here. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed his dismay in a press release last week, and he is certainly feeling the heat: The BLM controls around two-thirds of Nevada's land. Other sunny states affected include California and New Mexico.

Now, I don't want to diminish the importance of land reclamation, water use, or the well-being of the Mojave ground squirrel. OK, scratch that last one. But I have to say that this seems like a uniquely bad time to throw the brakes on our nascent domestic solar industry.

[meinolf67]

Big Renewable-Energy Subsidies Backfire
New Jersey regulators are considering cutting off solar rebates after a flood of applications overwhelm the program, providing the latest example that too much success can be a bad thing.
by: Jennifer Kho
Bullet Arrow June 27, 2008

You'd think big subsidies would be good for renewable energy, and they are. But could too much of a good thing be bad for the industry?
Advertisement

Take a look at New Jersey. According to The New York Times, state regulators are considering ending solar rebates - and replacing them with energy credits that would be traded on the open market - after applications have far outpaced the rebate money available.

The program has a backlog of more than 700 applications for the rebates, leading to long waits that have stretched from months into years in some cases, the newspaper reported.

It's one of the richest rebates in the country, said Ron Pernick, a principal at Clean Edge.

And therein lies the danger: Generous subsidies tend to be well used and end up costing more than expected.

Germany is a good example of the dangers of success.

The country offered a feed-in tariff that paid a higher rate for the generation of renewables, including solar power, making it cheaper to own solar power than to buy conventional electricity.

The high cost to the government led to a backlash, with politicians questioning why the solar industry still needed such high subsidies, and the tariff has declined faster than expected - although not as fast as many had feared (see Solar Prices Set in Germany).

"Germany really only needed to get [solar] to price parity, and it went over that," Pernick said. "The incentive has got to be there for the solar manufacturers and the value chain to drive down pricing. If a subsidy is too large, it has a reverse effect."

Spain has seen another case of successful-subsidy backlash.

In September, the country reached 344 of the 400 megawatts it had set as a cap on its solar subsidy, making it clear its program would reach the limit much earlier than originally expected in 2010 (see Is Spain Shining Too Brightly? and Spain Considers Adding a Solar Gigawatt). The country is considering expanding the cap, but reducing the tariff per kilowatt-hour.

Again in New Jersey, the rich rebate has jump-started solar activity, as intended. But it's cost the state a king's ransom.

The rebates, which have averaged $20,000 for residential projects and more than $1 million for large commercial installations, have cost the state $170 million so far, according to The New York Times. The Board of Public Utilities estimates the rebates would total $11 billion by 2020, if they aren't changed.

Under the new plan, most of the rebates would end this year, while some rebates for small residential projects would disappear over the next four years, the newspaper reported.

Pernick said he's not surprised about the amount. In a report earlier this month, Clean Edge forecast that it would cost up to $33 billion annually to make solar 10 percent of the country's electricity by 2025 (see When Will Solar Reach Significance?).

Setting a high incentive - such as the one in New Jersey - that doesn't decline as prices come down can leave governments with a large bill that only increases as the market develops, he said.

"You don't want an overly rich subsidy because it will break the bank and it won't result in lower pricing," he said. "Subsidies have to be very carefully structured to cover the difference between the prevailing rate of a competitive technology and that of the emerging technology, and building in a subsidy model ... that declines over time can be very important."

Pressure to reduce or eliminate successful subsidies is common, and not only in solar, he said.

Pernick pointed to the tax credits for hybrid vehicles in Oregon as an example. Some lawmakers and residents have questioned whether the credits are still needed, considering the high gas prices and the fact that the Portland metro area has more hybrids per capita than any other city in the country, according to Willamette Week.

"It's hard to know when a crossover has occurred," Pernick said. "The question of where to change or end a subsidy can be a difficult one and you certainly don't want to bankrupt a state because a subsidy is so successful."

In other words, the best subsidies are sustainable - not too high and not too low, so they can give the market some stability.

"You have to set it at the right level, so it's not overly rich - and some of these programs, such as in Germany, are overkill - but provides a long-term view of where the industry is going," Pernick said.

Still, Pernick said, in spite of strong growth, solar isn't yet cheap enough to remain competitive without government help.

"The solar industry is not at price parity yet, and incentives and tax credits are very important to getting to that place," he said. "Natural gas, oil and nuclear power all rely, to some extent, on subsidies and incentives. The oil industry doesn't have to apply for subsidies every year."

That argument might not be enough to keep the government cash coming.

New York, Colorado, Maryland and other states also are considering scaling back government subsidies, according to The New York Times.

The federal renewable-energy tax credits also are set to expire at the end of this year. The solar industry has repeatedly tried to extend the credits, but has been unable to get an extension past both houses of Congress (see Senate Blocks Renewable Incentives Bill).

Meanwhile, Japan is countering the trend by trying to resurrect its solar subsidies, which ended in 2005 (see Japan Wants to Resurrect Solar Incentives and Japan's Wind-Power Problem).

[meinolf67]

Bureau Of Land Management Backpedals On Solar Moratorium
in News Departments > Policy Watch
by Michael Bates on Thursday 03 July 2008
email the content item print the content item

Just weeks after issuing a moratorium on new solar projects located on public land, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reversed its decision and will continue accepting applications for potential solar development on the acreage it oversees.

The BLM had originally issued the moratorium to allow the bureau to study potential solar projects' environmental impact on land in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

However, by virtue of pressure from the solar industry and members of Congress, the BLM reconsidered its policy and decided to process existing applications and accept new proposals in concert with ongoing environmental assessments.

"We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications, and we are taking action," commented BLM Director James Caswell, in a statement.

[meinolf67]

Published: Jul 06, 2008
00:04 EST

By THE ECONOMIST
It seemed so promising — mirrors sprawled across the scorching Southwest delivering clean electricity and helping to wean Americans off imported fossil fuels.

Some scientists and industry developers claim that Nevada's empty and sun-drenched expanses alone could supply enough terawatts to power the entire country.

Now, even the optimists fear this wonderful prospect may be a mirage. Congress has been dithering over extending a valuable investment tax credit for solar-energy projects, which solar advocates say is critical to the future of their industry but which is due to expire at the end of the year.

The latest attempt failed in the Senate last month, and prospects for a deal before November's elections now look dim. Uncertainty has led some investors to delay or abandon projects in the past few months.

Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said if the tax credits are allowed to expire at the end of the year, "it will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar."

Further dampening hopes for a big solar-energy boom, the federal Bureau of Land Management has abruptly slapped a moratorium on new applications to put solar collectors on federal land.

The agency says it has a backlog of more than 130 applications and needs to conduct a regionwide environmental impact study on the industry before it will accept any more. The study will take 22 months to complete, however.

Few argue against trying to preserve precious water sources and protect desert tortoises and other creatures that might not enjoy cohabiting with sprawling fields of mirrors. But many solar advocates wonder why the government is not acting as cautiously when it comes to drilling for oil and gas.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, wants a congressional probe into the proposed moratorium.

"The fact that the BLM pops this out without people even knowing about it, especially when solar thermal looks extremely promising as a baseload power source, is not right," she says.

Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader in the Senate, also condemns the freeze, saying that it could "slow new development to a crawl."

The bureau is not without its supporters, however.

At a public meeting June 23 in Golden, Colo., Alex Daue, of the Wilderness Society, said his organization supports renewable- energy development as long as it doesn't damage other important resources.

The message is clear: no rubber stamps, even for renewable energy.

[meinolf67]

Financing Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Introduced in Congress
Author photo Written by Carol Gulyas
Published on July 6th, 2008
Posted in alternative energy, alternative fuels, business, global warming, politics, products, solar energy, water, wind energy


Wind Turbine Propeller Blade Being TransportedRepresentative Jay Inslee (D-WA) has introduced legislation to establish a feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable energy. Feed-in tariffs have made Germany a solar powerhouse that employs 40,000 people in the solar industry alone, and an estimated 140,000 jobs in renewable energy. FITs have not been a topic of discussion in this country, but now that is sure to change, as the conversation shifts to ways to finance the growth of renewable energy. Renewable Energy World reports that:

“Inslee’s legislation would require utilities — at the request of any new renewable energy facility owner — to enter into a 20-year fixed-rate power purchase agreement. Uniform national “renewable energy payment” rates would be set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at levels that would provide a 10% internal rate of return on investment for available commercialized technologies in regions constituting the top 30th percentile of renewable energy resource potential in the U.S..”

In plain English, this means that if you install solar PV panels on your home, the utility has to buy the electricity you generate at a higher rate than retail, guaranteeing you a return on your investment. Extending this power purchase agreement for 20 years gives everyone — especially those who want to invest in renewables or start a small business installing solar panels — assurance of return on their investment.

In Germany this has motivated citizens and businesses to put up solar panels wherever they can, allowing Germany to get 14.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources. Though Inslee’s legislation has little hope of getting through this Congress (they are still stalling on renewing the existing solar energy tax credits), FITs will surely be in the news more as the election season heats up.

Related Posts:

40,000 Solar Jobs in a Cloudy Country

Atlantic City Convention Center Plans Largest Solar Roof in U.S.

Image Credit: Carol Gulyas

[meinolf67]

No Tax Credit, No Solar Power
Abengoa Solar could halt two projects if the U.S. government doesn't extend multiyear investment tax credits.
by: Rachel Barron
Bullet Arrow July 14, 2008

Spanish owned Abengoa Solar would suspend its plans to build a concentrating solar-thermal plant and a mirror manufacturing plant in the United States if the federal government doesn't extend a package of investment tax credits for eight years, a company official said Monday.
Advertisement

The company has been working on a 280-megawatt solar thermal power plant in Arizona that would use a field of mirrors to direct the sun's heat for generating electricity.

Abengoa is also looking at building a factory to make mirrors. But the company is banking on the passage of investment tax incentives that would help offset the cost of the projects.

The trouble is, Congress has tried several times – and failed – to extend the incentive package, which is scheduled to sunset at the end of the year. Republicans and Democrats haven't been able to agree on heady issues such as how to pay for them.

A new legislation for passing the tax credits is alive. The Senate will soon consider whether to take on a set of incentives already passed by the House.

"It’s not us. We want to do the project," said Fred Morse, senior advisor of U.S. operations for Abengoa Solar, Monday at Intersolar North America during a Greentech Media seminar. "But the bank will say that it's not financeable" without the tax credit, which would foot 30 percent of the solar-thermal plant cost. Abengoa hasn't disclosed the cost of both projects.

The package of investment and production credits would not only benefit solar companies and their investors, but also help other types of renewable energy companies such as wind and geothermal (see Senate Blocks Renewable Incentives Bill, Solar Industry’s Five-Step Plan, Solar Sharpens Weapons for Incentive Battle and Senate Rejects Green Incentives to Pass Energy Bill).

The tax credits only apply when the plant comes online. Yet a solar-thermal project would take four to six years from start to when it comes online, Morse said.

In February, Abengoa Solar announced it would build the 280-megawatt solar-thermal plant and sell the electricity to utility Arizona Public Service.

The company has yet to decide the location of the mirror factory.

Concentrating solar-thermal power systems use different types of mirror configurations to concentrate the sun’s heat, collect it and convert it into electricity with the aid of a generator.

Abengoa Solar is currently seeking regulatory permits before it can start construction on the plant, to be located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix.

The company also needs the approval of the Arizona Corporation Commission to sell the electricity produced by the plant to the Arizona Public Service, Morse said.

For now: "We're moving along under the assumption that the (investment tax credit) gets extended," he said.

If Congress doesn't pass the multiyear tax incentive package before the end of this year, it may allow for a one-year extension instead and let the next Congress make what has been a difficult decision.

In a recent Q&A with Greentech Media, Morse said a one-year extension offers no value to companies such as Abengoa Solar.

There are about 400 megawatts of concentrating solar thermal installed in the United States, with about 4,300 megawatts of projects under development, said Morse, who is also chairman of the concentrating solar power division of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Not everyone shares Morse's view about the one-year extension of the investment tax credits.

Hal LaFlash, director of emerging clean technology policy for California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, said the extension could help companies persuade investors to keep projects on track. Many investors and companies also believe that the next president, regardless of whether he's a republican or a democrat, would sign the multiyear tax credits into law.

PG&E is counting on solar companies to build enough power plants so that it can meet a state law that requires PG&E and other state utilities to get 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2010.

During the last three years, PG&E has been bulking up on its renewable energy portfolio with solar energy, including solar-thermal deals.

In June, the utility entered into an agreement with San Joaquin Solar to buy power from a hybrid project that will combine solar-thermal and biofuel technology to make electricity 24 hours a day (see PG&E to Get Power from Solar-Biofuel Hybrid Project). In April, the utility signed a deal that it would get up to 900 megawatts of solar thermal energy from BrightSource. In November it signed a 177-megawatt agreement with Ausra (see Ausra to Build 177-Megawatt Solar-Thermal Plant, Ausra Raises $40M for Concentrating Solar-Thermal and FPL and PG&E Back Solar-Thermal).

Of course, the investment tax credits alone won't ensure the success of these projects. Other challenges include building more transmission lines to ferry electricity from power plants in remote areas to the customers.

To get a sense of how hard it is for a company to go from signing a contract with PG&E to actually completing the project, LaFlash pointed to a California Energy Commission study that showed 12 percent of the renewable energy contracts signed by public-owned utilities were canceled between 2002 and 2007. Another 20 percent were delayed.

[meinolf67]

Extension of US solar investment tax credit emerges as key issue at Intersolar/Semicon West
15 July 2008 | By Tom Cheyney | Chip Shots

For many of those attending the colocated Semicon West and Intersolar North America trade shows this week in San Francisco, one of the most important events in the solar industry is taking place on the other side of the country in Washington, DC. The US Senate is again discussing and likely voting on whether or not to extend the 30% solar energy investment tax credit (ITC)--which expires at the end of 2008--for another eight years.

With strong public and business support, you'd think that the ITC would sail through Congress, as it indeed has in the House of Representatives several times already. Yet so far, bitter, election-year partisan wranglings--with Democrats and some Republicans supporting it, but a determined group of Republicans opposing it in its current form--have derailed efforts to approve the extension.

During his excellent overview of the market context of CSP at the "Concentrating Solar Technologies and Markets" conference, industry pioneer and Abengoa Solar US adviser Fred Morse painted a bleak picture of the prospects for the US solar sector if the ITC fails to win approval. In listing the factors standing in the way of the next wave of concentrating solar power technology development and installations taking off, he cited the US Congress's failure to pass the ITC extension as the biggest obstacle, surpassing the admittedly challenging aspects of cost, power transmission, land use, permitting, and environmental concerns.

"Why would the guys in DC rather play politics," he railed, "than address the country's renewable energy resources?" Later in his talk, he continued his plea, saying "the lack of an ITC extension is killing solar," noting recent layoffs and a lack of new hiring, with several gigawatts' worth of projects on hold as companies and investors hold their breath awaiting the extension's future.

During the Q&A, he said the ITC is "worth 2 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, and that's alot," adding that although he'd like to see the credit made permanent, that with the "right carbon policy and an eight-year extension," the time span would probably be enough to move the industry beyond the point of needing the policy (although he didn't specifically use the grail term, "grid parity"). He also called on the states to do more in areas such as renewable portfolio standards and manufacturing tax credits, whether the ITC is extended or not, and proposed the establishment of a feed-in tariff as another part of a strong US renewable energy policy.

During the SEMI press conference, Vicki Hadfield, the trade organization's president for North America, stated the group's strong support for the ITC extension, along with a permanent R&D tax credit, more federal spending on NSF and NIST, an increased cap on H-1 visas, free trade and open markets, and other parts of its election-year wishlist. When I asked her about the prospects of the ITC passing and its possible effects on the industry, she said, "we believe it will pass, maybe not this week; if not this week, then in the fall. There is huge support for it... The key is finding offsets."

I followed up with Maggie Hershey, SEMI's senior director of public policy (AKA lobbyist) in DC, who reminded me of Navigant Consulting's grim forecast of 116,000 domestic jobs lost and a $19 billion investment hit in 2009, and the negative "ripple effect" beyond that, if the ITC is not extended this year. But she reiterated Hadfield's remarks, expressing confidence that the extension will indeed be passed later in the year, despite the current "difficult, tense point" hindering compromise efforts.

She believes that if the ITC is framed more in a "stand-alone package," less entangled with other tax-extender bills (and "things are shaping up that way," she says), then it should pass the Senate, be conferenced with the House and approved, and that the resulting version sent to the White House would not be vetoed by President Bush. But if it passes in a package with some other, more controversial "offsets" or "pay-fors," a veto could happen, she thinks.

Hershey said the thinking on Capitol Hill these days is that there will be no post-election sessions of Congress. But "the appropriations process has completely broken down," so many people don't expect the legislators to finish their allocations work. "So if they don't do it [extend the credit] before the election, they may no do it at all" until next February or March. This scenario underscores Hershey's belief that the ITC extension must and will be passed before the current session ends in early October.

There are other factors at play in the backrooms and chambers of Washington, as there always are, which could throw a wrench in the solar array, and the intricacies of public policy are not my ken. I also don't trust President Lame Duck to do the right thing (which has never been his strong suit), especially when it comes to anything with the faintest tinge of green and clean--even if it makes good business sense and is, as far as I can see, absolutely critical to the future prosperity and health of this country.

But Hershey's--and SEMI's--guardedly optimistic viewpoint, buoyed in part by ever-increasing citizen pressure on the DC pols, offers hope that the ITC will be properly extended, and the US solar industry will quickly start to achieve the gigawatt-scale dreams that the concentrated wisdom of experts like Morse believe are within its grasp.

[meinolf67]

July 18, 2008, 2:22 pm
Solar: Are U.S. Installations About To Come To A Halt?
Posted by Eric Savitz

For months now, Congress has been dithering about what to do about the solar investment tax credit program, which is due to expire at the end of the year. It is looking increasingly unlikely that the program will be renewed before Congress goes into summer recess in August.

Christopher Blansett, an analyst with J.P. Morgan, noted this morning that if Congress does not act soon, solar system demand in the U.S. “will be severely impacted.” Blansett says the industry would start seeing the effects in the fourth quarter, since potential larger commercial solar system installations would likely not be started if they can’t be assured to reach completion by the end of the subsidiary period on December 31.

“Although it is likely that Congress will eventually extend the renewable energy tax credit, we believe the near-term demand concern is likely to continue to put investors on edge and solar energy stocks under pressure,” he writes in a research note. “News flow indicates that some large projects have already been delayed due to the uncertainty in the federal subsidy,” which currently provides a 30% tax credit for solar installations.

Blansett thinks that Congress could act on the issue in September, ahead of the election, “given the political currency of renewable energy.” But I would add that other industry players now think that a renewal of the solar tax credit program isn’t likely to occur until a new president takes office early next year, which could means a longer period of uncertainty for the industry.

[meinolf67]

Michael Kanellos
Attention Solar Industry: Prod Congress With a Call Tomorrow July 22, 2008 at 5:01 PM

The renewable energy tax incentives will come up for a vote again soon in Washington, and a group of investors/activists will work the phones tomorrow to try to get a few key lawmakers to support incentives once again. And they want your help.

The organization, a Facebook group called Renew Solar and Wind Incentives Now, is asking members and anyone else to call up the offices of three U.S. Senators–Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina– and Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland and express their support for the tax incentives. The organization is not targeting die-hard opponents, explained Josh Becker, one of the organizers and a San Francisco-based venture capitalist. Instead, these are lawmakers that have supported incentives in the past and thus may do so again.

Here are the numbers if you have some free time for calls tomorrow:

Senator Chuck Grassley (IA, R): [phone]
o Chief of Staff: David Young

Senator Richard Lugar (IN, R): [phone]
o Chief of Staff: Marty Morris

Senator Elizabeth Dole (NC, R): [phone]
o Chief of Staff: Greg Gross

Congressman Steny Hoyer (MD, D): [phone]
o Chief of Staff: Bill Cable

[meinolf67]

23. Juli 2008
Nation's Most Solar Integrated Utilities Revealed
Solar Electric Power Association Announces Top Ten Rankings
Washington, D.C.—

Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) today announced Top Ten rankings that reveal which utilities in the United States had the most solar electricity integrated into their energy mix as of the end of 2007. The rankings are based on information provided through a survey of utilities and independent research.

"Based on recent announcements and internal discussions with utilities, SEPA anticipates that utilities will quickly become the largest and one of the most important customers for the solar industry," said Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director.

"Based on recent announcements and internal discussions with utilities, SEPA anticipates that utilities will quickly become the largest and one of the most important customers for the solar industry," said Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director. "Whether solar electric systems are developed by utilities, their customers, or solar companies, the utilities' proactive engagement with emerging solar technologies is important to the solar industry as a whole. This market survey and resulting rankings provide a baseline against which increased utility activity can be measured in the future."


For total solar electric capacity by megawatt (MW), Southern California Edison (CA) takes top honors as the most solar integrated utility with the most overall solar capacity (MW) and solar capacity per customer (MW/customer). Southern California Edison’s long-standing contracts with the SEGS concentrating solar thermal (CST) plants drive its large number of solar megawatts. However, with a number of recent large-scale CST announcements by several other utilities, Southern California Edison’s top ranking may no longer hold once these new plants are constructed. In addition to overall rankings, additional Top Ten lists were released based on the amount of solar electricity interconnected to the utility in two different configurations: customer side of the meter and utility side of the meter. On the customer side of the meter, Pacific Gas & Electric (CA) took the honors for both the largest amount of overall solar capacity and the highest MW per customer, but the latter category is in striking distance for several public power utilities. On the utility side of the meter, Southern California Edison is the highest ranked utility both for overall MW as well as MW per customer, which drove its number one total ranking. The list diversifies when you dive down further into the data and differentiate utility types. On the customer side of the meter for public power utilities, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (CA) is the most solar integrated in overall capacity, while Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (HI) has the highest capacity per customer. California—with its long-standing policies for solar market development—represents the majority of the highest rankings, but utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin also make the top ten in many categories. Solar markets are expanding rapidly beyond California and when standardized by the number of customers, interesting results will continue to emerge in the coming years. Next year’s survey and report will be based on 2008 data and will be published in early 2009. It will no doubt show a reordering of many of these rankings as the solar markets change. In the last year, U.S. electric utilities’ engagement with grid-connected solar electricity increased significantly, with major photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar thermal (CST) announcements by utilities, their customers, and third-party solar developers. Utilities have traditionally operated as a solar facilitator, integrating customer developed projects. However, recently there have been several announcements by utilities of new entrepreneurial ideas that provide fresh solutions to regulatory, customer and internal issues. “These top ten rankings highlight solar-leading utilities that have put significant efforts into facilitating what have traditionally been customer-based solar solutions,” says Mike Taylor, SEPA director of research. “What has become apparent however is that over the next few years, there will be an unprecedented level of new utility engagement in the solar industry that develops both centralized and distributed systems in new and unique ways. Several U.S. utilities, some of whom aren’t in these rankings yet, are positioning themselves to be the solar industries largest and most innovative customers.”

The full report, which includes the rankings, is available for download at www.solarelectricpower.org.

[meinolf67]

July 25, 2008

Washington, DC, USA: New Senate Compromise on Solar Tax Credit Extension

For more than a year, Congress has attempted to pass a bill to extend incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy like solar but members have been unable to agree on how to pay for the bill.

Last night, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced a new version, “The Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008,” S.3335, aimed at resolving differences. The bill is expected to be voted on in the Senate as early as next Tuesday, July 29. Extension of the solar tax credits has come up for a vote in the Senate seven times and in the House five times during the 110th Congress and each time has failed to progress.

Baucus stated, “This bill will create jobs, jump-start alternative energy, and ease financial burdens for American families, and Congress needs to act on it now. With gasoline over four dollars a gallon and a lot of folks needing work, there’s a big need for this tax relief right away.”

Passing an eight-year extension of the solar tax credits is critical for our nation’s energy security and economy.

On July 23, 51 governors (all except Georgia) signed a letter to Congressional leadership calling for a long-term extension of the renewable energy tax credits, including solar. The governors cited the important role renewable energy plays in our nation’s energy security and tax incentives will promote a clean, secure, and affordable energy to fuel America’s future.

Further details about:

[meinolf67]

Senate to Vote on New Renewable Incentives Bill
The bill would extend production tax credits for one to three years and investment tax credits for eight years, and also would remove a limit excluding public utilities from receiving the credits.
by: Jennifer Kho
Bullet Arrow July 29, 2008

The renewable-energy industry is continuing to sling bill after bill into Congress in the hopes of saving federal tax credits from expiring at the end of this year.
Advertisement

So far, none of the bills have broken the barrier of the 60 Senate votes needed for approval. But the industry isn’t giving up hope yet.

A new bill, which Renewable Energy World said could reach the Senate floor as early as this week, would extend a 30 percent investment-tax credit for solar energy and fuel cells – as well as a 10 percent investment tax credit for microturbines – for eight years, and would allow public utilities, which are currently excluded, to claim these credits.

It would extend the residential solar credit for eight years, double the annual cap from $2,000 to $4,000, and allow small-wind projects and geothermal heat pumps to also receive the credit.

Among other provisions, the bill would extend production tax credits for wind facilities for one year and for biomass, geothermal, ocean energy and a few other technologies for three years, and it would provide $2 billion in bonds to finance projects using those same technologies.

It also would provide $1.5 billion in tax credits for carbon-capture and -sequestration demonstration products.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., introduced the bill, called the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, last week.

But so far, bills to extend the tax credits haven’t been able to survive both houses of Congress (see Solar Roundup: Another Tax-Credit Proposal, Solar Sharpens Weapons for Incentive Battle, Policy Roundup: U.S. Senate Passes Incentives, Solar Industry's Five-Step Plan, Renewable Tax Incentive Still At Risk, Senate Rejects Green Incentives to Pass Energy Bill and Senate Sends Energy Bill Back to Beginning).

Last month, the Senate twice failed to get the votes to end a filibuster on another bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which also would have extended renewable-energy incentives (see Senate Blocks Renewable Incentives Bill and Green Light post).

While many companies still believe a one-year extension will be passed before the credits expire at the end of the year, Thomas Weisel Partners doesn't have high hopes that it will happen in time to prevent a gap, according to a research note released in June (see Solar Firms Struggle to Forecast 2009).

"It perplexes us as to why the investor community has continually hoped for the passage of this bill over the last 12 months; however, given that we are in an election year we

Meanwhile, Abengoa Solar earlier this month said it would suspend plans to build a concentrating solar-thermal plant and a mirror manufacturing facility in the United States if the eight-year investment-tax-credit extension doesn’t pass (see No Tax Credit, No Solar Power).

[meinolf67]

July 31, 2008, 11:01 am
Senate Again Fails To Extend Solar Tax Credits
Posted by Eric Savitz

The U.S. Senate yesterday failed yet again to approve a measure that would extend solar tax credits, which are due to expire at the end of 2008.

As Reuters notes, a measure which would have extended the tax credits for eight years failed a key procedural vote.

In a statement, Solar Energy Industry Association president Rhonse Resch warned that a failure to extend the tax credit could damage the domestic solar industry:

For the eighth time since June 2007, the Senate was unable to reach a bipartisan compromise to extend solar tax credits which are vital to the solar industry and our economy. Time is running out to extend the solar tax credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment. Already companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of jobs overseas - real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time when we need it most.

The Senate now has little time left this year to extend these tax credits. I strongly urge the Senate to figure out a bipartisan compromise and immediately extend the solar tax credit when they return from their August recess.

While industry observers expect the credit will eventually be extended, there are concerns on the Street that the uncertainty about the future of the credits - and the potential that they will not be renewed until after a new administration is installed early next year - will cause U.S. installation of solar systems to temporarily grind to a halt.

[meinolf67]

SEMI, SEIA comment on US Senate’s failure to pass solar investment tax credit extension
31 July 2008 | By Tom Cheyney | Chip Shots

A cloture motion on an eight-year extension of the 30% solar energy investment tax credit failed yet again on the US Senate floor today (July 30), by a largely party-line vote of 51-43, the legislation still needing an additional nine votes to get to the senior chamber's floor for debate. I wrote a blog-column here about the ITC extension question a few weeks ago and remain firmly in favor of its passage.

In reply to an email sent earlier today, Maggie Hershey, SEMI's head lobbyist on Capitol Hill, remarked: "There's not that much to say about it since few expected that it would pass today. We are disappointed that it looks like Congress won't approve the extension before the August recess and urge them to pass it as soon as they return."

Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, also issued a statement after the vote failed.

"For the eighth time since June 2007, the Senate was unable to reach a bipartisan compromise to extend solar tax credits which are vital to the solar industry and our economy. Time is running out to extend the solar tax credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment.

"Already companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of jobs overseas--real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time when we need it most.

"The Senate now has little time left this year to extend these tax credits. I strongly urge the Senate to figure out a bipartisan compromise and immediately extend the solar tax credit when they return from their August recess."

Abengoa's massive Solana solar thermal project in Arizona is one of several planned installations that may get shelved if the ITC doesn't pass, according to an article in politico.com. "If built today, this will be the single largest solar power plant in the world," said Fred Morse, US senior adviser to Abengoa. "Without a year extension of the [tax credit], the Solana project can't be built because the financing won't be made viable because the numbers won't work."

"The fate of Solana is in the hands of the investment tax credit," said Steven Gotfried, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service, said in the same piece. "With that investment tax credit, a future with renewable energy becomes a reality. And without it, it puts it in jeopardy."

For more coverage on Wednesday's ITC vote in the Senate, check these links to stories filed by Reuters and Associated Press.

[meinolf67]

From: , Worldwatch Institute, More from this Affiliate
Published August 1, 2008 11:10 AM
U.S. Utilities Advance Solar Projects


Several major U.S. utility companies may accelerate plans to integrate solar power into their electricity mix following a fact-finding trip to Germany.

Twenty-three electric utilities were represented on the trip to Germany, the world's leading producer and installer of photovoltaic (PV) solar cells. All of them may now advance solar projects in the United States, a trip leader said, further expanding a growing solar market.

"Every single utility would decrease the time they said it would be before solar would be a significant part of their utility mix," said Julia Hamm, the executive director of the Solar Electric Power Association, which organized the trip, covered some participants' travel expenses, and conducted a poll on solar power upon the trip's conclusion.

The tour was an opportunity for utility executives and managers to speak with German utilities and address concerns about how expanded solar energy may affect grid reliability. The trip, which took place in June, was summarized in a Solar Electric Power Association report [PDF] released last week.

Roy Kuga, vice president of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), said his concerns about distribution were put at ease, although the intermittent nature of solar energy may still be problematic. "In a country where solar radiation is sub-par compared to many parts of the U.S., I have to hand it to the progressiveness and commitment [Germany] made to solar," he said. "Their technology advances will later help us."

In Germany, a feed-in-tariff law [PDF] requires utilities to pay customers a fixed rate for any renewable energy they feed into the grid, such as solar power generated from rooftop PV panels. While the policy sets the cost of renewable energy higher than traditional energy sources, the price decreases over time.

Mainly due to these fixed rates, Germany is home to nearly half the world's installed solar cell capacity. About 1,300 megawatts (MW) of new PV capacity was installed in 2007, bringing the country's total to more than 3,830 MW.

In the United States, solar PV is growing. The country ranks fourth for total capacity, with at least 450 MW installed. An assortment of rebates, grants, and low-interest loans is scattered across the states.

Utilities represented on the tour included two of the largest U.S. utility companies, Southern Company and Duke Energy. Represented utilities also included Southern California Edison and PG&E, the U.S. utilities with the most installed MW of solar power and the most overall solar capacity, respectively.

This year, utilities have already announced plans to expand rooftop PV capacity. In June, Duke Energy proposed a $100 million expansion of solar panels on 850 buildings in North Carolina. Southern California Edison plans to install 250 MW of distributed capacity over 65 million square feet (19.8 million square meters) of roofs in the next five years. PG&E plans to help California meet the state's goal of 3,000 MW of customer-installed solar power by 2017. "In the upcoming months, we should expect to hear more from PG&E activities in this area," Kuga said.

Several of the utilities on the tour were less experienced with solar power installation. "Half the utilities on the trip really had done nothing or little [solar installation]," Hamm said. "It was a complete eye-opener for them."

Jim White, a senior energy services engineer with a Washington state public utility, said he was most impressed with Germany's efficient methods of solar installation. For instance, when a PV system is set up, a new electric panel is placed inside homes with a separate meter for solar energy. "It's plug-in and play, literally. You buy a solar panel and put it on your roof...drop down two wires and call the electric utility," White said. "It's an order of magnitude faster than where we are today."

[meinolf67]

48 State Governors Urge Congress to Renew PTC/ITC
July 25, 2008
Source: New Energy Finance

Governors from 48 US states have called on the US Congress to extend federal tax credits considered critical of the development of US renewable energy.

In a letter to Congressional leaders, the governors asked that the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation that would renew for at least five years the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit, which primarily subsidize solar and wind, respectively. The governors also asked that more funding be allocated for federal Clean Energy Renewable Bonds, which support the development of publicly financed projects.

The credits are currently set to expire at the end of 2008. South Carolina and Georgia were the only states that did not sign the letter from the National Governors Association, likely because of the region's poor wind and solar resources. Governors from three US territories were also signatories.

The governors sent their letter to Congress on the day the House passed a bill that raises the likelihood the PTC/ITC will be shelved until the fall. Republican Senator John Ensign had attempted to attach the PTC/ITC extensions to a federal housing bill intended to provide relief for homeowners. He reasoned that it was the one bill almost guaranteed to get presidential approval in 2008 and he hoped to get the extensions through Congress by pinning them to the legislation. He was joined in that effort by Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington State.

In April 2008, the Senate approved the housing bill with the Ensign/Cantwell amendment attached but fiscally conservative Democrats in the House removed the extensions because the estimated USD 8bn in credits were not paid for in the legislation.

Ensign tried again on his own in June to have the PTC/ITC extensions added to the housing bill and said he would block the legislation until the credits were included. Then in early July, Ensign proposed a version of the bill that included USD 8bn in spending reductions to pay for the credit extensions. Again, the amendment failed to gain sufficent support.

The bill went back to the House without the credit extensions in mid- July and was passed by the chamber 23 July. The bill is now awaiting passage in the Senate before it goes to the White House where it is expected to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.

[meinolf67]

Senate Voting Records on Extension of the PTC/ITC

Last week was the most recent of 8 failed attempts by Congress to extend the federal investment and production tax credits since June 2007. The Solar Energy Industry Association has published a list of how all Senators voted on those bills. In a very disturbing trend, John McCain did not cast a 'yea or nay' vote in a single one of those attempts. In the painfully close 59-40 defeat of the motion to include the incentives in the December 2007 energy bill, McCain was the only one in the entire Senate who registered 'not voting' into the historical record.

Barack Obama, despite voting 'yea' in that narrow defeat of the energy bill and in the first three attempts at extending the PTC and ITC, has not voted in the last five attempts. Together, Obama and McCain account for 40 percent of the 32 'not voting' tallies in those 8 attempts since last summer. The only other Senators to record more than one ‘not voting’ were Senators Ted Kennedy (4 - likely due to recent bout with cancer) and Hillary Clinton (3).

Only by candidates casting their votes on important issues do we get the opportunity to see through the campaign fog and hold them accountable. Congress is now taking a month long vacation while clean energy companies hustle to complete projects before the end of the year when the PTC and ITC expire. At the root of many of our country's economic and political ills, America needs a candidate that is going to take clean energy seriously – and consistently show us where they stand. In an election where we have heard so much about 'change' - 'not voting' sounds a lot like the status quo.

[meinolf67]

15. August 2008
SEPA Statement on Historic PG&E Solar Announcement
Utility Announces Two Photovoltaic (PV) Plants Equivalent to Almost Double the Amount of Current U.S. Grid-Connected PV Capacity
Washington, DC

The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) applauds Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a California investor-owned utility, for today's groundbreaking 800 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic announcement. With 473MW of grid-connected photovoltaics installed throughout the entirety of the U.S. as of the end of 2007, this announcement by a single electric utility to develop almost double that amount is a strong signal of the growing role of solar electricity in the nation's future energy mix.

"PG&E's announcement represents the largest single photovoltaic commitment from an electric utility anywhere in the world," stated Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director. "It represents the pinnacle in a series of large and innovative U.S. electric utility solar projects that have been announced in the last six months."
PG&E's plans include a 550MW PV plant with Optisolar and a 250MW project with SunPower, both to be constructed in phases between 2010 and 2013. "PG&E's announcement represents the largest single photovoltaic commitment from an electric utility anywhere in the world," stated Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director. "It represents the pinnacle in a series of large and innovative U.S. electric utility solar projects that have been announced in the last six months."

When completed, the two projects will deliver 1.65 billion kilowatt-hours of solar electricity per year, enough energy to serve about 239,000 homes. The SunPower's plant will include single-axis tracking, which automatically orientates the solar panels toward the sun as it moves across the sky during the day, while Optisolar's panels will be fixed in one direction to the south. "These two solar project configurations represent competing technology advancements we have seen in the photovoltaic industry recently," according to Mike Taylor, SEPA director of research. "Each is aiming for the lowest cost per kilowatt-hour but have diverging techniques for getting there. Optisolar's thin film technology is lower efficiency, but the panels and installation configuration are designed to minimize costs. SunPower's technology is the highest commercial efficiency in the industry which commands a premium price, but with the tracking technology, they are aiming to produce more kilowatt-hours per solar panel."

According to PG&E, both projects are contingent upon the extension of the federal investment tax credit, which is set to expire at the end of 2008, and processes to expedite transmission for delivering the central station solar power. The tax credit extension has been mired in Congressional energy debates since 2007, falling victim to the complexities of the competing parties' energy policies.

PG&E was recognized earlier this month by SEPA for ranking second in the country for the total amount of solar energy integrated into their electric system and ranking first for solar electricity generated by systems on their customers' facilities. "PG&E's solar portfolio has continued to grow year after year," stated Julia Hamm. "They continually raise the bar for other utilities, and send a clear message that solar electricity is an option to be taken seriously by all those in the energy business." In 2007, PG&E was the recipient of the SEPA Business Achievement Award for Solar Portfolio Leadership.

To arrange interviews with or comments from Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director or Mike Taylor, SEPA director of research, contact Josephine Mooney at 202-857-0898 x6 or [e-mail].

[meinolf67]

21. August 2008
Will US Solar Businesses Weather the Coming Storm?
by Glenn Harris, SunCentric Incorporated
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

With just over 120 days left before federal incentives expire, solar businesses in the U.S. are taking action to protect their core business. Layoffs, announced and unannounced, have started. Construction projects are being canceled or postponed and new sales have dropped dramatically. Uncertainty is forcing our solar businesses into difficult decisions -- not if, but when to cut and, how deep to cut. The coming loss of talented people and companies should be viewed as a loss of our country's intellectual property -- and a national tragedy.

It has been my habit over the years to look for the silver lining when it comes to the solar business in the U.S. But today, it's tough to find one.

A delay in a new federal program until a new administration can act in Q2 2009 is now a realistic scenario. This possibility makes it easy to imagine that U.S. grid-connected installations could fall to well below 100 megawatts (MW) in 2009, down from forecasts of 300 to 500 MW, which would represent a radical decline after years of steady growth. Each part of the channel and each business sector will be impacted.

Integrators and installation companies across the U.S. are most at risk. These local and regional businesses have no realistic way to create profitable new markets or work outside of the U.S. For those who focus on commercial projects, no Investment Tax Credit (ITC) means zero installations. Potential solar system owners won’t purchase and install systems without ITC certainty. Some well-managed and established residential installers will likely scrape by, but many companies will lay their work force off and go out of business. California’s residential installers, our largest market, have already been suffering because of high costs and low incentives. The loss of the US $2,000 ITC for homeowners will make a bad situation worse. Solar on new homes, which has been getting some traction despite the downturn in the new home construction market, will virtually stop as even the most progressive solar homebuilders and their partners lose the foundation of their business plan.

Solar distributors will be hard hit as many of the under-capitalized small and medium solar installation companies they serve will disappear overnight. If they are unable to sell the PV modules they have committed to, those modules will be sent to other countries, severely impacting revenues. Most of these companies have been through tough times before and will adapt again by downsizing and shifting their emphasis to the small off-grid segment and other markets allowed by their supplier relationships.

U.S. PV manufacturers and those international PV companies that support the U.S. market face many challenges and may consider the U.S. slowdown a minor market disruption. They will reallocate their products internationally and, based on world selling prices, make better margins. Some planned investments in U.S. manufacturing, organization and infrastructure growth will be canceled or postponed and some companies will scale back U.S. operations.




Other U.S. based manufacturers of inverters, mounting structures, balance of system components and data monitoring who have already diversified their businesses into international markets have a fair chance. Few have done this. Those who were counting on a robust U.S. market will need to scramble to adapt their products for international markets. For the unprepared it’s difficult to imagine gaining traction near-term without significant investments in product and market development. The scale of the international markets and our favorable exchange rate, if it continues, gives those who are properly capitalized a fighting chance.

Power Purchase Agreement companies and others who provide financing for solar systems, may continue to sell and do some preliminary work on projects, but with only a 10% ITC there is no scenario short of radical electricity price increases or radical decreases in installed system cost that would allow investors to authorize many projects. Some have low overhead operations and will likely take a “solar vacation” and wait out the storm. Other more vertically integrated organizations will likely downsize while the industry is offline. A few risk takers may double down hoping to build a significant backlog of business that they can complete when the market restarts.

Last week PG&E announced two PV projects totaling 800 MW — the type of projects that prove solar electricity can be relevant to utilities today. The press release includes the following statement: “Both projects are contingent upon the extension of the federal investment tax credit for renewable energy and processes to expedite transmission needs.” OptiSolar, a U.S. based thin-film startup will supply 550 MW to the project, an amount that would certainly help create jobs, as well as grow a potentially profitable U.S. manufacturer — the exact reasons why governments around the world support developing industries.

It has been my habit over the years to look for the silver lining when it comes to the solar business in the U.S. Today, it’s tough to find one. The worse case, the idea that we will have to take a giant step backwards and then rebuild, is coming true. Our people have worked tirelessly to move our fledgling industry ahead and gain momentum against enormous inertia and countless barriers. It is beyond my comprehension how 535 people in congress and 1 in the White House could let partisanship rule at a time when the right decision for the country is so obvious. Our industry’s objectives of job creation, energy independence, and environmental stewardship should be treated as an urgent national priority.

[meinolf67]

Energy shaping up as key battlefield in Presidential election,
but candidates disagree on renewable power and ethanol

With record gasoline prices and looming confrontations with Iran and Russia providing
mood music, it is hardly surprising that both US Presidential Candidates have made
energy independence a key part of their platforms. However analysis of their speeches,
policy proposals and voting records by New Energy Finance suggests a wide gulf
between the two men’s approaches towards clean energy. This contrast sees Obama
favouring central and protectionist measures, while McCain offers more regional and
market-based proposals.
Democratic Senator Barack Obama has indicated he would push for a federal Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), which would commit the whole of the US to achieve targets for
renewable energy use by a set deadline, most likely 2020. Obama would also press more
strongly for an extension of the two main subsidies that support the construction of wind farms
and solar parks in the US – the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit
(ITC). Both credits are due to expire at the end of 2008 and their disappearance could make a
big dent in renewable energy project investment in the US.
“There can be little doubt that Obama has championed the cause of US renewables such as
wind, solar, and geothermal,” said Ethan Zindler, New Energy Finance’s head of North
American research, noting that Obama has voted repeatedly for extending the PTC/ITC and for
a national RPS while in the Senate. “He hasn’t just talked the talk, he’s walked the walk in his
voting record.”
For his part, Republican Senator John McCain favours removing the tariff on imported ethanol –
a move that would encourage biofuel industries elsewhere in the Americas, and bring low-cost
Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol into the US market in substantial quantity. This could, in the
long run, lead to greater substitution of gasoline by ethanol than Obama’s emphasis on the
domestic US corn-based ethanol sector.
“Building a strong relationship with Brazil on energy matters may prove a smart move, given that
recent offshore oil finds may see Brazil join Venezuela and Mexico as Latin America’s oil
superpowers,” said Michael Liebreich, chairman and CEO of New Energy Finance.
On biofuels, Obama has supported President Bush’s controversial Renewable Fuels Standard,
which commits the US to consuming 36bn gallons of alternative fuel a year by 2022. That
policy has been blamed for driving up the price of US corn and, in turn, US families’ food bills.
Obama is also committed to the current $0.54/gallon tariff that obstructs the import of Brazilian
ethanol into the US.
“A free and open trading market for ethanol produced efficiently from sugarcane could play an
important role in cutting emissions and reducing US reliance on crude from hostile nations,” said
Zindler. “McCain deserves credit for sticking to his guns and demanding the removal of the US
tariff even as he has campaigned in Iowa and other states in the corn belt.”
Senator McCain’s selection as his running mate of Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska who is
married to a North Slope oilman, is a sign that his support for increased oil drilling may harden
in the run-up to the General Election. He also strongly supports nuclear power, proposing 45
new plants by 2030 – in stark contrast to Obama, who has been more guarded in his attitude to
the construction of new nuclear capacity.
McCain voices support for renewable energy– he uses wind turbines in some of his TV
advertisements - but New Energy Finance notes that he has passed on chances to make clean
energy a national priority on the Senate floor. Repeatedly, he has missed chances to vote for
bills supporting measures such as the PTC and ITC or a federal RPS.
Both candidates support a national cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emissions. However
whoever wins in November will face a tricky task pushing such a measure through a divided
Congress. With energy security taking precedence over climate change concerns on the 2008
campaign trail, clean energy policies that improve energy independence will be higher on
Congress’s to-do list in 2009 than cap-and-trade. New Energy Finance analysts believe that
while an exceptionally strong result for the Democrats in the Senate would give Obama a
chance of pushing carbon cap-and-trade through quickly, almost any other result would leave
him struggling with stubborn opposition. As for Senator McCain, under almost any conceivable
scenario, if elected he would be forced to work across party lines to achieve his energy and
emissions agendas, given that Democrats are considered a lock to maintain control of both the
Senate and House.
Liebreich said: “We expect either a President Obama or a President McCain to pursue more
vigorous policies on clean energy and emission reductions than President Bush has done for
the last eight years. Obama is arguably being more imaginative, but he is also taking more of a
centrally-planned approach. McCain’s regional approach, and in particular his insistence on
tariff reductions, has much to recommend it. But neither candidate has yet put forward a fully
comprehensive plan, and we are hoping to see them developing their policies more completely
– particularly towards the encouragement of renewable power generation and energy efficiency
– during the final few weeks of the campaign.”

[meinolf67]

4. September 2008
Crunch Time for Renewable Energy Tax Credits
by Stephen Lacey, Podcast Editor
Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Congress comes back to Washington next week and in the tradition of election-year politics, there's a good chance that much won't get done before November. That means there are very few chances left to extend the Production and Investment Tax credits before they expire at the end of the year. This week, our Washington Analyst Scott Sklar updates us on the tax credit situation and gives us his take on the presidential candidates.
Then, we'll finish up our California ballot initiative series by looking at the arguments in support of Proposition 10. There's a growing debate about whether or not the measure will favor natural gas vehicles over other battery-based options. Proposition 10 supporter Patrick Dorinson tells us why the initiative will benefit all forms of transportation in the state.

Finally, we'll have a look at what the city of Greensburg, Kansas is doing to rebuild in a sustainable way. Greensburg was devastated in May of 2007 when a Tornado ripped through the city, demolishing 95% of the buildings. Contributor Mark Braly talks with Tim Schmidt, CEO of Xtreme Homes, a company working to bring green modular homes and a sustainable employment base to Greensburg.

[meinolf67]

9. Oktober 2008
What Utility Involvement in the Distributed Solar Market Means for the Future of the Solar Industry
by Adam Browning, Vote Solar and Kevin Fox, Keyes & Fox, LLP

Over the past 6 months, utilities across the U.S. have made unprecedented moves into the solar distributed generation market. What are the implications for the solar industry and what does this mean for solar policy?

For much of the last century, the typical electric utility model has involved siting large fossil-fuel or nuclear generating stations in remote locations. More recently, this "central station" model has included solar generation and other renewable fuel sources, such as the 354 megawatts (MW) of parabolic troughs dating from the late-80s in the Mojave (the SEGS plants), and Acciona's 64-MW Solar One plant commissioned last summer in Boulder City, Nevada. In fact, California utilities have about 3.5 gigawatts (GW) of contracts in place with central station solar projects, with much more to follow. There have also been major announcements of central station solar plants from Arizona to Florida.

What we have seen recently is entirely different. In March, Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to install 250 to 500 MW of solar photovoltaics (PV), in projects of 1 to 3 MW on leased rooftops distributed throughout its service territory. If approved, the SCE application would allow SCE to own and rate-base the generating assets and sell the electricity to its customers. Not to be outdone, Duke Energy in North Carolina has announced that it wants to do US $100 million worth of distributed generation solar (about 16 to 20 MW), and more recently, San Diego Gas and Electric filed an application with the CPUC seeking approval of US $250 million of distributed solar (70 to 80 MW). That's a lot of solar, and it will be installed in a way that we are not used to seeing-not as large, central station plants, but as utility-owned generation sited at or near loads, providing wholesale power for utilities to sell to their customers. We hear rumblings from literally every corner of the country about other utilities considering similar moves.

What does this new development mean for the solar industry? Some fear danger ahead. SCE made at least two claims in its application that rang alarm bells for solar advocates. First, SCE claimed that it can do solar much cheaper than it can be done by private companies using California Solar Initiative (CSI) incentives, California's $3 billion fund that provides incentives for utility customers to generate their own power with solar. Although SCE's projected costs (US $3.50/Watt installed) are better on a per-watt basis than the current average costs of systems going in with a CSI incentive, the ratepayer-funded CSI program provides only a relatively small portion of total project costs, and the bulk are covered by private investment. So, from a ratepayer perspective, SCE's claim is not correct. With a fixed amount of ratepayer dollars, California can incentivize more solar development by providing a marginal incentive and leveraging private investment than by authorizing utilities to install and pay 100% of the cost.

Second, and more disturbingly, SCE suggested that since its ratepayers are going to bear the burden of paying for its proposed solar program, perhaps its ratepayers should be relieved of their responsibility for contributing to the incentive payments available under the CSI. That is a direct attack on the self-generation model supported by the CSI, and has some people wondering if SCE's application shouldn't more properly be viewed as a cynical calculation of the minimum amount of solar the utility needs to invest in to keep private solar companies under control-and from impacting their revenues. That's the pessimistic view. On the other hand, if the goal is to maximize the amount of solar generation on the grid, then massive utility investment could be a good thing.

We suggest that there is a third path available, where utility investment in solar as a wholesale generating resource at the distribution level will not only bring new solar onto the grid, but also provide an opportunity to carve out new market opportunities for all solar players.

Again, let's take the case of SCE. In its application, SCE justified its proposed investment by making strong arguments about the benefits ratepayers derive from installing photovoltaics inside of distribution networks-peak shaving, grid support, deferred transmission and distribution investment, reactive power, etc. The CPUC can only approve SCE's application if it believes that these ratepayer benefits are worth the cost-and this provides an opportunity for solar advocates to harness the same arguments and leverage SCE's request to open up the market opportunity up to everyone. Value is value-and if SCE is permitted to make solar investments on behalf of ratepayers, then other players that can provide the same value at a comparable or better cost can hardly be denied.

California's largest investor-owned utilities have argued that California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) already offers opportunities for small-scale, distributed solar generation. Now, it is true that systems of any size are in theory allowed to participate in the RPS. But as a practical matter, there have been very few wholesale power purchase agreements for delivery of solar power inside of distribution networks, and that is because the mechanism for purchasing wholesale power-responding to requests for proposals pursuant to the state's RPS and negotiating bilateral contracts-disadvantages smaller systems. The transaction costs associated with selling power from a 5-MW system are almost the same as those associated with selling power from a 500-MW system-and small project developers are finding it expensive and difficult to secure contracts. In other words, although California's RPS has produced contracts for large central station solar-as noted above, California utilities have about 3.5 GW of solar contracts in place-the RPS has not proven successful in facilitating a market for smaller distributed solar systems.

The remedy is to open up the market for small-scale distributed systems by developing a standard-offer contract for solar generation delivered inside of distribution networks, pursuant to RPS goals. Yep, that's right-a feed-in tariff. In California, a suite of solar advocates including Vote Solar, the Solar Alliance, the California Solar Energy Industry Association (CalSEIA), Green Volts, Recurrent Energy, and others have pursued this approach in several different venues: both in response to SCE's application to the CPUC, and through the CPUC's ongoing AB 1969 implementation proceeding.

If the effort is successful, what would the FIT price be? There are two basic approaches to setting a FIT: a cost-based approach and a value-based approach. Under a cost-based approach, the CPUC would consider the least-cost wholesale solar options. Certainly, SCE's projected price-point would serve as one benchmark-and SCE thinks its average installed cost will be $3.50/W, and estimates its levelized cost of energy (LCOE) at around 30¢ per kWh (without the federal investment tax credit). On the other hand, First Solar is projecting that somewhere around 2010-2012 its cost of manufacturing will be between 65¢-70¢/W and that it will be able to profitably sell electricity in the U.S. between 8¢ and 10¢ per kWh. Finally, California is blessed with solar resources that allow a wide variety of solar technologies to compete, and multiple solar companies representing concentrating solar power, tracking PV and thin-film technologies already have several gigawatts of contracts. For concentrating solar, the Department of Energy estimates future price projections in the First Solar range. While contract prices are not available to the public, it can be reasonably assumed that they are well below SCE's 30¢/kWh. When the conversation turns to wholesale solar power, these are the benchmarks California policymakers would most likely consider under a cost-based scenario.

Under a value-based approach, the CPUC would start with the current Market Price Referent or MPR (the MPR is the energy and capacity value of a combined cycle gas turbine, 20-year LCOE-it's used as the benchmark for the cost of non-renewable generation), currently about 10¢ per kWh, and then look at adders to capture additional value. Currently, the CPUC includes a time-of-delivery adder to capture the value of providing electricity on peak, and a greenhouse gas adder to capture the anticipated future value from avoiding the cost of carbon emissions (though many of us argue that this additional value, roughly 1¢ per kWh, is unrealistically low). The CPUC could incorporate an additional adder to capture the value of siting generation inside of a distribution grid. In our joint filing before the CPUC, the solar advocates have suggested that the CPUC quantify all the benefits SCE cited to justify its application-peak shaving, grid support, deferred T&D investment, reactive power, etc-and incorporate that value into a locational-specfic adder.

We don't presume to predict how the CPUC will rule, but we believe it is a pretty compelling argument, made all the more palatable by mirroring both the arguments and value proposition put forward in SCE's application. An additional benefit of this approach is that it turns the typical conversation about solar's costs into a discussion of solar's value. A tariff developed under this approach wouldn't be considered a subsidy or incentive, but rather the equivalent of an avoided-cost valuation, and as a result, much more durable.

In either case (a cost-based approach or a value-based approach), feed-in tariff pricing (and RPS contract prices, for that matter) will eventually need to be set at a level below retail rates — if not at first iteration, then certainly in the future. It is axiomatic of successful business models that wholesale costs must be less than retail prices, and if solar is to come to scale as a meaningful wholesale generating resource, it too will have to fit within this paradigm. And in that event, a utility customer with a solar system on her roof will be better off net metering that electricity and using it herself. That way she will get retail value for all on-site generation as opposed to selling the electricity to a utility at a wholesale rate then buying back electricity from a utility at a higher retail rate. An additional benefit of this approach is that it allows homes and businesses to use solar to fix energy costs, hedge against future utility rate volatility, and reduce utility bills-a possible benefit of solar not harnessed under a wholesale purchasing model.

Policy debates often derail in a search for a single silver bullet policy that is envisioned as the only path forward. But it is important to keep in mind that unlike many other technologies, there are two possible markets for solar: a retail market, where generation serves on-site load and the price benchmark is retail electricity rates, and a wholesale market, in which generation is sold to utilities for further distribution and re-sale to utility customers. The path forward will be one of adding-and fine-tuning-the avenues for solar to express its value in all of the markets we have discussed. We see a future with an RPS for large, central station plants, a feed-in tariff for smaller systems (likely at the distribution level, where they have the most value) selling wholesale power, and net metering for systems that serve on-site load and reduce retail utility purchases for hosts.

In many ways, the most exciting impact of utility expansion into distributed generation markets is the opportunity it provides to open markets for private developers of wholesale solar. At the same time — and there is a minor irony here — as markets and policymakers prepare for the long-sought future where solar can deliver wholesale power at conventional wholesale prices, the counterintuitive result is an increased imperative on also securing the policies necessary for self-generation. To achieve this goal in the US, we must maintain continued support for net metering. But don't take our word for it. Germany has just established a self-generation program, too.

Adam Browning is executive director of Vote Solar. Kevin Fox is a partner with Keyes & Fox LLP.

[meinolf67]

25. September 2008
Net-metering or Feed-in Tariff? Can They Co-exist?
by Glenn Harris, CEO, SunCentric Incorporated

California's recent near miss with a Feed-in Tariff, SB 1714, shows just how the U.S. solar market might get the stimulant to start the expansion the industry has dreamed about. The statewide 750 megawatt (MW), first come, first served, program would have allowed up to 3 MW per meter and used standard contracts to set terms and conditions between the system owner and the utility.

The CPUC would have tackled the $/kWh side of the equation and would have been tasked with valuing solar for the positive attributes it delivers. The simplicity of the bill echoes European programs and its implementation looked quite straightforward. It would also have created a model that other states could study and adapt for their use. Based on current legislative activity, the story may not be over for the new California FIT, so we'll keep our fingers crossed.

It's interesting that SB 1714 got so much traction so quickly after net-metering based SB 1 was signed into law in August 2006. The resulting 3,000 MW, 10-year, California Solar Initiative (CSI), launched in January 2007, now has less than 80 MW connected to the grid and the program's uneven results have revealed many unintended consequences to implementing this primarily roof-top PV program.



Americans for Solar Power (ASPV)'s 2005 landmark study on the value of PV in California should be refreshed and used as guidance when determining a FIT rate. The total value of PV has likely increased significantly. To view a document that explains this chart, click here.

The CSI's massive complexity, poorly designed incentive structure and potential for gaming were apparent before the program started. Twenty months into the program there are no signs of acceleration and many in the industry consider the program dead in the water. Incentives have declined by 25 to 40%, without the hoped-for system-cost reductions, virtually eliminating the possibility for reasonable financial paybacks and endangering the industry's health. SB 1's objective of creating a sustainable solar industry is way off target.

On the upside, the CSI's Performance Based Incentive (PBI) program has demonstrated how the industry can improve system design and kWh per installed kW output. And while it can be argued that the CSI has most benefited a few large companies, it has created a platform for the development of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) and leasing mechanisms in both the commercial and residential markets. California's real desire for more renewables, lessons learned from the CSI program and discussions about expanding the State's RPS are likely the key reasons why the most forward thinkers in the solar industry, legislators, utilities and rate-payer groups were able to come together on SB 1714.

When considering the potentials of net-metering and FITs, it's important to recognize that net-metering programs are designed to create incentives to install systems that generate power equal to or less than the predicted on-site load. FIT programs are designed so that systems can be installed at sites with no load, and generate electricity that is purchased, under contract, by the local utility.

On the surface, the experience with the CSI might lead one to conclude that net-metering should be discontinued in favor of a FIT. On the contrary, New Jersey's program of several years ago, California's CEC and SGIP programs and the early CSI commercial gold rush, shows that with the correct incentives, net-metering programs can stimulate demand on the retail side of the meter. For those that own a home or a commercial building, net-metering is a fine solution because most roofs, even fully populated with PV, can't offset the full load of the building on an annual basis. Depending on a customer's electrical tariff, demand charges, site location, program incentive level, PV technology selected, etc. a net-metered system can create a financial win and support the growth of distributed generation.

By simply adding another utility meter to the site and setting the $/kWh incentive correctly, the same roofs could be ideal candidates for a FIT system — an obvious solution particularly if the roof area can generate more power than the site requires, such as giant warehouses, farm buildings and parking facilities. Doing a FIT system on a roof also protects the system owner against a change in the building's use that might decrease the power consumed at the building, as an example a manufacturing facility that changes to a distribution facility. In this scenario, using net-metering, the customer would receive a retail credit on his/her utility bill, but not have enough load to use the credits before losing them at the end of the year. A FIT would simply pay the generator for the electricity sent to the grid.

For sites that have seasonal usage patterns or low on-site load, net-metering is a non-starter. Yet many of these sites have large expanses of unshaded areas that would be great for solar — and in the case of parking lots and farms, should not face serious challenges with permitting requirements or local fire departments. By connecting FIT systems where no on-site load exists, such as vacant fields, we leverage solar technology's best benefits and deliver power to meet local loads or support load growth. Using FITs to "farm electrons" will encourage more customers to consider investing in solar. That's good for the industry — it expands the market opportunities for all companies and increases the demand for solar.

Today, based on the way California's SB 1 and SB 1714 are written, it is not possible for a system owner to "double dip" and receive both a FIT and a net-metering incentive through a single utility meter. A system owner would have to choose. This is not to say that the same owner could not own two systems: for example, one on a roof top that receives a CSI net-metering incentive and one in a field that has a FIT system. A second utility meter would have to be installed and dedicated for the FIT system.

The potential interplay between net-metering programs and FIT programs could lead to some confusion and debate even among solar industry insiders. Our industry's penchant for breaking into factions both internally and externally will certainly give even our most ardent supporters in government pause. Most importantly, as this debate develops, the advocates of net-metering will admit it is not a one-size fits all solution for expanding the use of solar in the U.S. At the moment net-metering creates some certainty for businesses and their investors. But if some larger, established companies work together to delay the implementation of FITs in the U.S. simply to defend their market position and business plan, they will slow the widespread adoption of solar needed to create scale, reduce cost and reach grid parity — our industry's #1 mission.

Esoteric and theoretical arguments may exist about how a FIT could impact retail generators, but practically a system owner will choose the program that delivers the best financial return. The 30% federal ITC, as it exists now and (hopefully) in the future, creates the underpinning for financial returns. While possible, it is not likely that any state will create a program that can stand alone without federal incentives. Until real installed costs come way down, a commercial solar system won't pencil unless you have a significant federal tax liability. Therefore system ownership will be concentrated to those entities that can consume those benefits.

Calculating ROI or IRR for a solar system is multi-variable exercise whose outcome is not dependent on an FIT or net-metering structure. Shifting investments into FITs will take some creative thinking, however no real threat to established companies, other than increased competition, can be easily identified.

If customers elect FITs, instead of net-metering, they will signal to the public policy makers that a FIT is preferable to net-metering. This could aid efforts by utilities to eliminate net-metering. But this is a false premise; utilities don't like net-metering now and they don't need one more reason not to like net-metering. They will work individually and collectively against it. If FITs align with their business model, create more distributed renewable energy that supports their grid system, and helps them meet their RPS requirements they may willingly accept it.

It's easy to see in the California example how having both net metering and FIT programs in place simultaneously could deliver great options to a wide group of potential solar system owners. They can exist together, and consumers will send clear messages to policy makers about their preferences.

California's has a great opportunity as the solar leader in the U.S. to show local, state and federal policy makers how to jump start the industry. Working to improve the CSI net-metering program and adding 750 MW of solar electricity to the grid, as proposed in the SB 1714 FIT will create more jobs, generate electricity where it's needed and deliver real environmental benefits.

Glenn Harris is CEO of the consultancy firm SunCentric Incorporated.

[meinolf67]

http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/11072/