Schwarzenegger signs solar bills AB 920 and SB 32

Late last night, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two major solar initiatives involving a feed-in tariff for utility companies and surplus electricity generated by customers.

It was the last day to sign bills from this year’s legislative session.

AB 920 requires utility companies to pay households or businesses for any extra electricity produced by the customer’s solar power system. Supporters said the bill would encourage customers, who previously had no incentive to use less electricity than was generated, to be more efficient.

SB 32 expands the feed-in tariff program for large-scale solar facilities from 1.5 megawatts to 3 megawatts, potentially pushing utilities to construct massive solar installations on unused spaces like parking lots and warehouse roofs.

Read more here.

-- Tiffany Hsu

Comments

[all think]

Its nice stepping in the right direction, isn't it?

With legislation on board - PV and wind can finally take off in CA.

[Paul Scott]

This is excellent news, but not the full story. We need to know at what rate the utilities will be paying for the kWh generated. Given that solar PV production generally follows peak use, and that peak power costs considerably more than off-peak power, we expect the rates to be significantly higher than previously discussed.

Also, the utility rebates are generally not included when one is purchasing a solar system under a feed in tariff. For a person to be profitable, he/she would need a guarantee that the rates would cover the amortized cost of installing a system.

As a starter, I'd like to see rates in the 30-40 cent/kWh range. I can make money with that.

[Ozzie Zehner]

Reconsidering Solar

We have to consider if it is reasonable to spend escalating sums of cash to install solar technologies that are in the stone-age of their development when we could instead be investing that money into the very research and development activities that could some day make them a viable solution for a broader populace.

Current solar cell technologies necessitate large up-front investments and vast quantities of mined minerals for their manufacture. Not only are solar cells a terribly expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions, but their manufacturing process is one of the largest emitters of hexafluroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – three gruesome greenhouse gasses that make CO2 seem harmless. Furthermore, solar cells are difficult to install, require regular cleanings and rely on a thinly-spread solar radiation from a sun that only shines half of the day, a cosmological constant showing no signs of improving.

For solar-based energy to make an impact, we will have to shift funding away from fabrication and toward research and development, implement passive solar techniques on a much larger scale, update building codes, and plant trees (the ultimate solar mechanism).

Ozzie Zehner

Ozzie Zehner is an energy consultant at ZehnerStudio.com and the Executive Director of Imagitrends.com, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

[Craig]

Could be a big win for me, as a way of getting my son to turn off the lights.
Much of the solar credits in the state were scooped up by big companies so it could be big for them as well. Since the Governor is involved maybe it's a clever way of circumventing a regulated industry , circumsolaring , so to speak.

[Doug Korthof]

Good news, and thanks to all who backed the bill. Now it's on to the PUC, where the forces of SCE will struggle to keep the rate low. We need to establish:
1. ENERGY PRODUCTION PAYS FOR METER READING, TOO (currently, SCE charges solar customers with a surplus for the rental and reading of their meter, an annoying small charge you have to pay every month);
2. UNTIL SOLAR BECOMES COMMON, UTILITIES SHOULD PAY AT THE FULL RATE FOR PEAK POWER, as deterimined by their Cost of Generation (COGS) study. Even with the phony DWR contracts, this is still in the range of 30-40 cents per kWh of blended peak power.

[Doug Korthof]

Ozzie, it's just not true, what you say! Solar rooftop power is lower, in amortized cost, than the utility power it replaces; even more economical when you consider that it's peak power.

Furthermore, we need solar power to generate the electric we use to power our plug-in Toyota RAV4-EV and other EVs; if there were plug-in cars, solar power would be self-financing, the return on investment would go from 10% to 40%!

The money you save NOT buying gas would pay for your solar system, and you would ride on energy you make yourself. The only thing stopping this is inertia, and foolish calls for "more research". Well, research is fine, but we need REAL PRODUCTION of plug-in cars and more solar power.

Bare research, without any production, is a waste of money and an illusion, a way to feel good without solving the problem.

[Tom Turnbull]

Great to see California taking the lead on this. We need to do the same in Oregon. Some of the commenters make valid points in terms of future development of solar technology. That said, it's not a time to wait for perfect. It's good to see good policy driving progress. http://cleanoregon.com/2009/10/13/true-net-metering-a-policy-oregon-should-consider/

[calsolareng]

This is great news!
The owners of empty rooftops on warehouses and homes all over our city and all over our state now have (even more) financial incentive to install solar.
This model has worked in other places (Germany and Gainsville, Florida for example) so I am very optimistic that it will help California break free from using non-renewable energy.

[Mike]

Right'o Doug!
Thanks to the Gov' and all who had enough spine to get this WONDERFUL BILL passed.
Now, it's all up to the CPUC to establish FAIR rates so the industry can flourish.
Way-to-go!

[Jack Ellis]

Peak power is currently not worth 30-40 cents per kWh. If you want to research market prices for electricity, check the California ISO web sites at www.caiso.com, and oasis.caiso.com.

[sheila]

I wish I could be excited, but what the story doesn't explain is that the rates will be abysmally low, our system sizes will be capped at our "actual use" so we can't actually install larger systems and participate in the renewable energy economy, and there is still a ridiculously low cap on how much power utilities are "forced" to buy from us.

To be fair, the bill (AB 1920 last year) started out good, and Huffman and Environment CA wanted to have fair rates, allow ratepayers to install as much capacity as possible, and remove caps so we could actually make a difference, and do it in a way that was not only MUCH cheaper for all ratepayers, but would also stimulate local jobs, improve property values, and provide genuine incentives for people to conserve energy. The bill had all that in there.

Instead, the utilities got in there and completely ruined the bill, and our legislators let them. There is NO WAY we can recover the costs of any excess generation capacity we might be inclined to install, not to mention we aren't even allowed to install excess capacity. This severely limits the success we could have had with point of use solutions, which is exactly what the utilities want.

So, another lip service bill, that does nothing to help global warming, homeowners, the solar industry or the workforce. It does, however, keep the utilities completely ecstatic because now they get to retain their monopolies AND build a bunch of unneeded powerlines, which are a huge profit center. Eminent domain, millions of acres of dead wilderness, huge water waste, SF6 emissions, concrete, steel, roads - this is our "green" future because they keep blocking solutions that WE could own, right where power is needed.

This is incredibly disappointing to those of us who have been fighting so hard for legitimate, democratic, environmentally sound and affordable energy policy in this state. And now that there is a bill passed, the issue will probably get completely ignored next year.

Sorry to be cynical, but this is not the bill you think it is. It was at the beginning, but it ain't now. So frustrating.

[Joe Lyou]

I'm really impressed with the comments on this article. Good analyses and very insightful. There is obviously still much work to be done. While not perfect, getting these bills into law is better than nothing and will help "green the peak", which is an important alternative to new "peaker" power plants being build in environmental justice communities up and down the state.

[nrgindeepndnt]

AB 920 is just a small bone with very little meat, a tad bit better than current net metering laws. Its is an abomination that rooftop PV is mostly an alternative for folks who are fairly well off, higher tier electricity consumers,while working class families struggle to pay ever higher electricity bills. Remember just a few weeks ago the Governor vetoed legislation AB 14 that would have increased the amount of rooftop solar to 5% of retail sales , now its capped at 2.5%. Thanks Arnold, for looking out for the energy industry, they really need your help!

All the while BIG SOLAR and BIG WIND and their BIG Financiers are gathering to start their feast at the public trough full of fresh fat incentives that are state,fed, and rate-payer funded.

Ultimately the plan is to keep you hooked on THEIR energy. What choice do you have?

[Scott]

This bill is a move in the right direction...we'll see how it affects billing.

Ozzie - I've been operating my 6.3 kW system for about 7 months now. With time-of-use billing, I'm getting a 21% tax-free return on my installed cost (after fed tax credit and CA rebate). I only wish I could build a larger one, right?

These systems are not as complex as the installers (or Ozzie) would like you to believe. I installed my own in two weekends. It took a little study and elbow grease, but I saved $19k over a contractor's quote. When Ozzie comes up with a better mousetrap, I'll buy it. Because I'm stoked with my negative balance now waiting for Winter loads.