Evolution of the California Solar Feed-in Tarriff

State of the California Feed-in Tariff

David Niebauer - Cleantech Blog

A new, innovative feed-in tariff for small-scale solar development is coming to California. Rather than setting a fixed price in an environment in which technology costs appear to be dropping, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed a market-based approach, allowing developers to bid the lowest prices at which they would be willing to develop projects. This approach focuses on adding capacity to meet California’s aggressive renewable portfolio standard (RPS), and appears to avoid the pitfall of setting a price that is too high or too low. Time will tell if the approach is effective, but the outline of the program released by the CPUC looks promising.

Background

Feed-in tariffs have been employed around the world for a number of years as a policy mechanism designed to encourage the adoption of renewable energy sources. Because non-renewable energy sources (e.g., fossil fuel combustion) cost significantly less to develop in a pure unregulated market environment, renewables require subsidies to make them competitive. Of course, the reason for the disparity is that we already subsidize non-renewable energy development by not assessing the full cost of the resource extraction activities, but that’s a topic for another article.

One approach to the cost disparity problem would be for governments to start taxing non-renewable energy generation, assessing the full cost to society and the environment for those activities. A more politically realistic solution is to provide an incentive to those developing renewable energy resources. The feed-in tariff is an innovative incentive program that is designed to provide a level playing field for renewable energy project development.

A feed-in tariff typically includes three key provisions: 1) guaranteed grid access, 2) long-term contracts for the electricity produced, and 3) purchase prices that are based on the cost of renewable energy generation. Under feed-in tariff regulation, utilities are required to buy renewable electricity from all eligible participants, effectively leveling the market for electricity generation.

Feed-in tariffs have been successfully employed in many countries over the last few years, most notably in Germany and Spain. The goal is described as “grid parity”: the point at which renewable electricity is equal to or cheaper than (non-renewable) grid power.

The California Approach

California regulators, guided by the CPUC, have flirted with a feed-in tariff for a number of years. Standard Offer Contracts for renewable power development were first introduced in California in the early 1980s in response to the state's investor-owned utilities (IOUs) perceived discrimination against small power producers. The CPUC ordered the utilities to offer standardized contracts and to offer one such contract, Standard Offer No.4 (SO4) with fixed prices. By the mid-1980s, private power producers had installed a significant amount of wind capacity in California, much of which is still in service today. Solar technologies had not matured to a level sufficient to take advantage of SO4.

California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) implemented in 2002 significantly raised the stakes for solar development. The California RPS program requires electric corporations to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20% by 2010. On September 15, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an Executive Order directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations increasing California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. As currently designed, RPS projects tend to be large and located in remote areas with abundant available land, but little transmission access or capacity. These larger projects take several years, at a minimum, to develop, due to the generation and transmission permitting processes, as well as the construction time required.

In early 2008, and as a means to promote smaller scale renewable projects, CPUC adopted a feed-in tariff that directs IOUs to offer a standard contract at the so-called market price referent (MPR) to all renewable technologies up to 1.5 megawatts (MW). However, this program has been generally ineffective because the price is not high enough to attract solar development: the MPR is based on the cost of generating electricity with a combined cycle gas turbine facility.

Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM)

In August 2009, the CPUC issued a new proposal designed to significantly increase the amount of solar energy installed in the state from smaller producers. It has moved away from using MPR to set the price and instead proposes to implement an innovative bid mechanism. The program would first expand the current feed-in tariff to 10 MW (to cover projects in the 1 – 10 MW size). Rather than setting the price at MPR, the CPUC proposes to allow developers to bid out projects through market-based pricing in what is termed a renewable auction mechanism (RAM). Under this system, developers would bid the lowest prices at which they would be willing to develop renewable energy projects and IOUs would be required to accept eligible projects starting at the lowest bid. As stated in the CPUC proposal: “This mechanism would also allow the state to pay developers a price that is sufficient to bring projects online but that does not provide surplus profits at ratepayers’ expense.”

Solicitations would be staggered for each IOU throughout the year using standard long-term power purchase agreements whose terms would not be negotiable. The program would be capped in each year and IOUs would be required to accept contracts up to the maximum amount of the cap. The program as currently envisioned totals 1 GW over 4 years, although industry observers believe that once implemented it could be easily expanded.

Next Steps

An Administrative Law Judge is currently reviewing certain jurisdictional objections raised by Southern California Edison after the initial CPUC proposal. The issue is whether the state commission can set wholesale prices or whether such an action can only be mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The RAM approach adopted by the CPUC appears to moot any such jurisdictional challenge. A decision is expected shortly. Once the decision is rendered, the content and mechanism for roll-out of the program will come up for deliberation and vote at an upcoming meeting of the CPUC.

David Niebauer is a corporate and transaction attorney, located in San Francisco, and a founding partner of Energy Counsel Partners, LLP (www.energycounselpartners.com). David’s practice is focused on renewable energy project development and environmental technologies. www.niebauer.net.

Biomethane - A Primer

October 20, 2009

Biomethane as an Energy Carrier

by Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation for Renewable Energy World.com

Methane is a better long-distance energy carrier than electricity. Its storage and transportation is much cheaper and easier than electricity. Natural gas pipelines cost half as much to build as electric towers and have about one fourth as much transmission loss. They are also more reliable, safer and visually superior to ugly transmission towers.

Building a hydrogen infrastructure now would be folly. Biomethane can do the job now and will be cleaner and cheaper.

Our electrical grid is only 30% efficient in delivering the energy in fuel burned to the customer. That efficiency could be doubled or even tripled if we used combined heat and power (CHP) generators located where heat is needed. By using the generator's waste heat, an efficiency of 85% is possible. Clearly it is smarter to expand our gas pipeline network than to build more electrical towers to distribute inefficiently generated electricity from massive power plants.

Even though most of our natural gas is now fossil fuel, a doubling of efficiency would be just as effective as achieving 50% renewable power as far as global warming is concerned. We can simultaneously work on greening our gas supply by feeding more and more biomethane into the pipeline.  In Germany 22 billion kWh of biogas were produced in 2007. That's a six-fold increase from 1999, driven partly by feed-in tariffs. About half of that biomethane was from landfill and sewage gas and the other half was from commercial and agricultural biomass plants. Renewable biogas is produced by natural processes of anaerobic digestion or gasification then cleaned up for sale to the gas pipeline. Sweden already gets 25% of their energy from biogas.

Energy storage is another big advantage of gas. Both the gas and the electricity grids need energy storage to take up the slack between production and consumption. Gas storage is cheap because it can simply be pumped into depleted gas wells and salt caverns. We are already storing 4.1 Tcf of gas in the US. At 85% efficiency that gas could produce 1,180 gigawatt-hours of useful power on demand. A very cheap battery!  The smart electrical grid is all about making supply match demand because electrical storage is so expensive.
Though the U.S. power grid uses significant hydro power and other renewables, CO2 emissions are still almost twice as much per kilowatt-hour as a 60% efficient natural gas fuel cell. In 2007 the U.S. power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. The fuel cell emits only 340 grams. EIA data makes it easy to track the effects of our attempts to green the electric grid: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this was reduced to 605 grams. That’s a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at that rate, it will take 139 years to equal what we can do now with a fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.

People have already begun selling renewable gas into the pipeline.  Landfills, manure piles and sewage plants that used to release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere are now selling it as green gas. Biomass and garbage can also be gasified to add to the supply. The energy balance of Grass Biomethane production is 50% better than annual crops now used. When biogas is captured instead of releasing it to the atmosphere we get a double bonus. Methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a cause of global warming in a 20-year time frame. You may have heard 25 times, but that's based on a 100-year time frame. Methane only persists about 8 years. Also, when manure piles are covered, N²O, which is 289 times worse than CO², can also be captured. Coal mines emit almost a trillion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every year.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, the 230-acre Rumpke landfill has been capped and the gas is cleaned and delivered to the pipeline to provide enough gas for 25,000 Duke Energy customers. China has an estimated 31 million biogas digesters mostly on small farms. They produce in total about 9 Gigawatts of renewable energy which is mostly used locally. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and now Ontario, Canada have feed-in tarrifs to encourage production of biogas. In Germany small farms can receive up to 25 cents per kWh for biopower. In the US, bills like SB306 that support biogas production, are still stuck in committee.
Increased system efficiency means we will need less of these renewable sources to do the job. If we’re going to gasify biomass, it is more efficient to upgrade the gas and send it through the gas grid to customer CHP units than to generate electricity less efficiently and send it over less efficient, more expensive power lines to the customer. Until we get more efficient electrical generators, generation should always be done where the waste heat can be put to good use.

Electric cars would be twice as efficient if they fueled up with natural gas and used a fuel cell to recharge a small battery. Like a hybrid with a natural gas fuel cell range extender. The expense and weight of a large battery is eliminated and the energy can be stored in a much lighter and cheaper tank. Refuelling can be much faster and could even be done at home from your natural gas connection. New, low pressure, adsorption tanks make this easy because they only require 500 psi of pressure. Recharging is a problem with batteries.  A 110v, 20A household plug can only supply 2.2 kW, which means that 10 hours of home charging will only take you 10 x 2.2 x 4 mi/kW = 88 miles. Natural gas refueling infrastructure is in place in much of the world to refuel five million vehicles worldwide.

We already have prototype hydrogen cars that work on a similar principle but hydrogen has virtually no refueling infrastructure. Hydrogen is very expensive to produce, store and transport. Its tiny molecules find the smallest leaks and fly into space. They embrittle pipeline metals by nestling into the metal matrix. Storage is extremely inefficient, requiring extremely high pressure tanks or cryonic vessels. One giant hydrogen delivery truck can service about ten customers.  Methane has one carbon atom that holds four hydrogen atoms in a tight formation making containment and dense storage easy. A gallon of liquid methane actually holds 2.5 times as much hydrogen as a gallon of liquid hydrogen!

"No carbon emissions" sounded like a great idea but 95% of our hydrogen is made from natural gas and that process emits about 30% more CO² than if we simply burned the methane. Yes, you can make hydrogen from water with electricity (at about 70% efficiency.) But you can also make carbon-negative methane from CO² and hydrogen. When you burn it, the net result is carbon neutral. The “carbon-free” cleanness of hydrogen is an illusion. Building a hydrogen infrastructure now would be folly. Biomethane can do the job now and will be cleaner and cheaper.