Solar

Archived Posts from this Category

October 11, 2011

Solar@Work Offers Huge Discounts To Commercial Building Owners And Lease Holders

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Free, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

A new program in San Francisco, Solar@Work, offers discounts, and in some cases free installation, on solar arrays for commercial building owners and lease holders.  Almost any size business can qualify for the program that will lower energy costs for participants.  For businesses proactively addressing San Francisco’s required energy audits, this program requires a closer look. (For full analysis of San Francisco’s commercial building energy audit program, click here)

Solar@Work groups commercial building owners and/or lease holders together to reduce costs through economies of scale.  Participants generate the greatest savings on energy costs through the purchase of a solar array.  The cost of purchasing and installing a system can be prohibitive, so Solar@Work creates a discount on installation and financing through volume pricing.  A “traditional” solar lease is also available with no up front cost, but the savings on energy bills are markedly less significant.

The Collaborative Solar Procurement model created by the World Resources Institute allows the Solar@Work program to offer four financing options.  Owners can purchase systems at a discount, secure a solar lease, secure a capital loan, or finance through other options including power purchase agreements.

The goal is to collect enough businesses in the program to collectively generate 2 megawatts of power or more.  Applications are being accepted until October 31, 2011, and an informational conference call is scheduled for October 21, 2011.

The ideal applicants are owner/occupiers or long-term leasers whose available space on a roof or parking area is 5,000 square feet or more.

Solar City is the exclusive vendor for the program created by the World Resources Institute, the City and County of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (SF Environment), in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Optony.

Solar City was selected through a competitive process to provide the installation services for the program.  The company anticipates hiring 400 new workers in the second half of 2011 including 100 in the Bay Area, partly due to Solar@Work.

Congratulations to WRI, San Francisco, and the other contributors to this program.  Solar@Work promises to be another great example of how sustainable development will lead a growth in the economy through reducing energy costs and increasing employment.

 

July 9, 2011

PACE Lawsuit Update

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

As you will recall, the Property Assessed Clean Energy program allows residents to pay for solar installations through a tax assessment on their property.  Last year, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) essentially stopped the program with a letter advising mortgage lenders that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not purchase mortgages on homes that also have PACE financing.  California and eight other parties sued the FHFA to rescind its letter and change its policy.

The PACE lawsuit (Case Nos. 10-cv-03084 CW, 10-cv-03270, CW, 10-cv-03317 CW, 10-cv-04482 CW) continues with a possible end some time in the summer of 2012.  A trial date is set for April 30, 2012.  (click here for the Case Management Order).  Some of my previous coverage of the lawsuit can be found by clicking here. In the beginning of this year, the court asked the Attorney General of the United States to submit a Statement Of Interest offering its position regarding the PACE lawsuit.

Although the executive branch previously endorsed the PACE program, and the creative financing mechanism that is the cornerstone, the Statement of Interest evades the issue at hand (the subrogation of primary mortgages).  Instead, the DOJ argues simply that the the FHFA has authority to bring and defend its own lawsuits and the DOJ does not see a need or mandate to interfere with FHFA’s handling of the matter.  The DOJ then states its only area of concern is that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit.  While plaintiffs may lack standing (I doubt it), the DOJ could have also offered analysis of the legitimacy of the program’s structure.

The parties are now heading to the discovery stage of litigation, but frankly there is nothing to discover.  As far as I can tell, there are really no material facts in dispute.  Either the FHFA is going to allow for PACE programs to move forward, follow the Department of Energy guidelines (Full Guidelines Here), and acknowledge the minimal risks involved.  Or, the FHFA will undermine one of the best modern approaches to nurturing mainstream adoption of sustainable development.

Unless Congress passes a law supporting PACE financing, the lawsuit will move forward, and frankly the prospects don’t look good for plaintiffs.  That means PACE programs will essentially become a great idea undermined by the inflexibility of bureaucracy.

 

June 13, 2011

An Argument For Renewable Energy, And A Response To Robert Bryce

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

On June 8, 2011, Mr. Robert Bryce, author of the recently published Power Hungry, The Myth Of Clean Energy And The Real Fuels Of The Future, wrote an Op-Ed piece to the New York Times. In the piece, Mr. Bryce argues that the recently signed mandate requiring a 30% renewable portfolio standard places too high a burden on society.  Mr. Bryce attempts a clever approach addressing considerations some sustainability advocates fail to consider.

Of note, I will be reading Mr. Bryce’s book and commenting on it shortly.  While I do not agree with Mr. Bryce’s observations in his Op-Ed piece, he does raise essential considerations that any advocate for sustainability must address.

The two main issues that Mr. Bryce raises in his short Op-Ed are that renewable energy sources such as solar thermal and wind power require vast amounts of space to generate large-scale power.  The other issue is that the manufacture of renewable power infrastructure requires vast natural resources.  Mr. Bryce’s Op-Ed can be found here.  Below is a critique of Mr. Bryce’s opinions.

(more…)

 

December 14, 2010

FTW! Largest Municipal Solar Project In California Comes Online

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Photovoltaic, Risk Transfer, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Last week Mayor Gavin Newsom  and Recurrent Energy announced the completion of the Sunset Reservoir Solar Project.  We mentioned the story back when it started, and we’re glad to see it finished quickly! A year and a half is pretty good to install 24,000 solar panels (imagine 12 football fields) generating 5 megawatts of power (with some sources stating as high as 7 megawatts).  The energy generated can power 1,500 homes, but will be used instead by the city to power public transportation and city buildings.

The project is the result of a public-private partnership (P3) with Recurrent.  As a result, San Francisco owns the property, but leases the rights to operate the plant and sell the energy.  Under the current contract, Recurrent will sell energy to the city at $0.235 /kWh.  That price will allegedly save roughly $1 million per year in energy costs.  Through the P3 procurement method, San Francisco saves the up-front costs of implementing the system, and reaps the rewards of low cost sustainable energy.

And, let’s not forget.  The money paid to Recurrent stays right here in California.  The corporation was founded in California, pays taxes in California, and employs people in California.  71 general labor jobs – in a decimated construction industry – were created from this project.  30 percent of those jobs were for individuals from disadvantaged communities (Though they had to fight to keep those jobs).

This project looks like a win for proponents of sustainable energy, public-private partnerships, and green job promotion (The CGBB fits into that category).  It also looks to be a win for San Franciscans who will instantly see savings in energy costs to public services.

In the meantime, congratulations to Recurrent Energy and San Francisco.  The Sunset Reservoir Solar Project is currently the largest municipal solar installation in the state.  We hope more of these projects are built immediately all around California and the nation!

San Francisco Press Release Here

(For those of you wondering, “FTW” stands for “For The Win”)

 

October 20, 2010

PACE Lawsuit Update (BerkeleyFirst and GreenFinanceSF Still Suspended)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Mortgages, Risk Transfer, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

The feud between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the PACE program is heating up.  I’m going to play devil’s advocate (for a moment), so let me quickly set the stage.  As you will recall, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and their parent entity (following the financial crisis of 2008) the Federal Housing Finance Agency (for convenience, collectively “FHFA”) single-handedly torpedoed the Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE), one of the best publicly and privately-funded tools for gaining energy independence.  California immediately sued to stop FHFA from interfering with the programs. (United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, Case 4:10-cv-03270-CW)  According to pacedata.org, five other parties have separately sued the FHFA.  Just last week, the FHFA filed a motion to dismiss the California lawsuit. I am not willing to join FHFA’s motion, but I am also willing to say we can’t just scapegoat FHFA. They are just doing their job.  Perhaps a compromise is in order?

For a copy of California’s lawsuit against the FHFA, click here.

For a copy of FHFA’s recently filed Motion To Dismiss, click here.

FHFA is in charge of protecting the integrity of the housing finance industry, and they have taken on PACE financing because it undermines the integrity of primary mortgages. They have a point, and they can’t just look the other way (as much as it appears they are looking straight into the pockets of big banks).

(See our previous posts on AB 811 backed PACE financing programs such as BerkelyFirst or SFGreenFinance by clicking here).

PACE debt is classified by municipalities as an assessment, and in case of non-payment the PACE debt becomes a tax lien against a home. The issue FHFA have is that in case of foreclosure, tax liens are paid first. That puts the PACE payout in front of a primary mortgage, and that undermines the integrity of the primary mortgage market.  If PACE programs explode in popularity across the nation (as they were prior to the FHFA advisory letter), that’s a big problem for FHFA.  The PACE debt is likely small, but if it is nationwide it is definitely an issue. If FHFA are going to be true to their mission they have to stand up to this (especially since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t show sound judgment leading up to the mortgage-backed securities financial crisis).

The sticking point is proponents of PACE financing aren’t interested in making the PACE debt secondary to a primary mortgage.  Recently, California Representative Mike Thompson (and many others) proposed a bill that’s a pretty good compromise, but still asks the FHFA to look the other way on PACE financing.  The devil’s advocate is not sure this is appropriate in situations where private entities finance PACE debt.

HR 5766 requires that:

“the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] shall adopt underwriting standards that are consistent with the Guidelines for Pilot PACE Financing Programs issued on May 7, 2010, by the Department of Energy.”

The DOE guidelines referred to in HR 5766 state:

“In states where non-acceleration of the lien is standard for other special assessments, it should also be standard for PACE assessments. After a foreclosure, the successor owners are responsible for future assessment payments. Non-acceleration is an important mortgage holder protection because liability for the assessment in foreclosure is limited to any amount in arrears at the time; the total outstanding assessed amount is not due in full.” (Full Guidelines Here)

The DOE guideline quoted above states that under a PACE program in a state where under foreclosure proceedings a primary mortgage holder can demand payment for the full amount of the debt, PACE assessments can only ask for the debt that was owed up to the time of the foreclosure.  This is an important distinction.  The problem is that the PACE lien still supersedes the primary mortgage to some degree.

I doubt this would be such a problem if municipalities provided all of the financing for PACE programs. Municipalities will always have the power to impose assessments.  The problem is that often PACE financing is provided by private enterprise.  Further, with the municipal budgets in pieces, the likelihood of private finance for PACE programs only increases.  I am all for PACE programs, but allowing a private entity to supersede a primary mortgage without asking the primary lender seems a little, shall we say, inconsistent (even if the motives are pure).

For my return from the devil’s side of the argument, and some suggestions for solutions, click the “more” link here:  (more…)

 

August 4, 2010

No Bids Necessary on Public Contracts For Energy

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

An article written recently for the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune discusses a dated law that permits no-bid award of public contracts for energy.  The law, passsed in 1983, is Government Code 4217.12, and it states,

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public agency may enter into an energy service contract and any necessarily related facility ground lease on terms that its governing body determines are in the best interests of the public agency if the determination is made at a regularly scheduled public hearing, public notice of which is given at least two weeks in advance, and if the governing body finds:

(1) That the anticipated cost to the public agency for thermal or electrical energy or conservation services provided by the energy conservation facility under the contract will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the public agency of thermal, electrical or other energy that would have been consumed by the public agency in the absence of those purchases.
(2) That the difference, if any, between the fair rental value for the real property subject to the facility ground lease and the agreed rent, is anticipated to be offset by below-market energy purchases or other benefits provided under the energy service contract.

While the sponsor of the bill does not specifically recall the legislative intent, it appears to reflect an early effort to award government contracts to clean energy companies that were not competitive compared to energy producers using traditional fuels. Now, as a recent contract for a solar installation awarded by the Peralta Community College District proves, this law appears to unintentionally undermine competition among sustainable energy producers.  The district, even in the face of a last minute proposal from SunPower that could have saved the district $1 million, awarded the contract to Chevron Energy Solutions.

Not so long ago, in an effort to get the best deal for taxpayers, local, state, and federal governments were required to accept the lowest bid on proposals for contracts.   Low-bid requirements, however, backfired often resulting in cheap, error-prone government construction. Deficient construction led to change orders, modifications, and/or repairs resulting in eventual contract prices far above initial bids.  Due to these shortfalls in the bidding process, governments have turned to ”best value” bidding and procurement such as “design-build,” that affords more flexibility to the award of government contracts.

Government Code 4217.12, however, predates best-value procurement, and appears obsolete. Flexibility was the impetus behind Gov. Code 4217.12, but procurement methods now provide sufficient flexibility without the no-bid option afforded by 4217.12.  The federal government procurement process is defined and regulated in Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). In California, the procurement process is generally defined in the Government Code, but can be found in other areas of state law depending on the project.

As California works to expand its energy sources, and energy production takes on diverse forms, competitive bidding must return to the procurement process.  Best-value bidding, while open to abuses of its own, is better than no bid process at all.

For more on the contract recently awarded to Chevron Energy Solutions by the Peralta Community College District, read the article by  Matt Krupnick by clicking here

 

July 14, 2010

California Suspends Solar Incentive Program!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Photovoltaic, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The California Public Utilities Commission instituted a three month suspension of rebates under the California Solar Initiative.  This Solar Initiative is the vehicle whereby the state government provides tax-funded incentives to install solar arrays.   To read the ruling, click here.

What is so unfortunate about this ruling is that the suspension is directed at non-profits and schools – the very entities that can not make up for lost incentives through tax breaks.  (The Federal government offers tax breaks for solar installations, and California offers tax incentives for solar installations under Section 73 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, amended by AB 1451 in 2008.)  The suspension is also directed to projects that are 30kw or greater, an obvious attempt to control the cost of the program by pausing incentives to the biggest beneficiaries.

The PUC suspension also appears counter-intuitive from an ROI perspective.  Tax-funded rebates to schools are far more likely to pay for themselves because school utility bills  are also paid with tax dollars.  The school utility bills will decrease after solar arrays are operational – a direct return on tax-payer investment!

The California Solar Initiative is wildly successful, and it has always been the intention of the program to gradually reduce the allocations as the cost of installing solar systems decreases.  (Environment California has a great report and chart (albiet two years old) that shows how the projected reduction in incentives is tied to the projected reduction in the cost of installations).  This is smart tax policy, but to suspend the Solar Initiative for the entities that provide the tax-payer with the greatest ROI, just does not make sense. 

The PUC is receiving comments on the California Solar Initiative over the next three months while the suspension is in effect.  

The California PUC recently issued its Annual Program Assessment to the Legislature regarding the California Solar Initiative.  Click here for a summary and access to the full report.

The Oakland Tribune has a great article on the suspension: Click here to read that article.

 

 

June 2, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 3

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar, Sustainable Community, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Parts One and Two of our analysis of the Final Report and Recommendations from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings discussed mandatory energy audits, the risks associated with allowing unilateral submetering, and the welcome drive to increase transparency in energy use reporting under an expanded implementation of AB 1103.  In Part Three of this post, we look at the task force’s proposal to “attract game-changing capital.”

First, it should be noted that the task force’s interest in attracting game-changing capital comes from not only prudence, but also awareness of the acute financial restraints facing our society.  The task force offers low-cost solutions such as the Green Tenant Toolkit, and looks to engage the private sector in these and other initiatives.

There are two possibly expensive financial initiatives proposed by the task force that we will address at length.  The first is a Financial Optimization Tool (FOT) – a fantastic idea.  The proposed FOT is software that organizes and amalgamates all incentives and rebates available to building developers, managers, and tenants.  Currently, the best place to find such information is through the Database of State Incentives and Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org) (a website that is the anchor on our Tax Incentives and Rebates page).  The problem with DSIRE, and other resources such as the Flex Your Power website or the US Department of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Newsletter, is the fluctuating information is difficult to organize.

DSIRE addresses this problem by simply listing every incentive available, and weekly (if not daily) updating that list.   This approach is thorough, however it creates a mountain of information to sift.   The FOT is a great alternative because it allows owners to use all incentives to design an energy efficiency program specifically tailored to their financial circumstances and their building’s design and condition.

To address the need for constant updates, the task force suggests a public-private partnership (P3).  The inclusion of a private partner could be effective.  But, as with so many other opportunities that are offered to private industry, this represents an early sale of future assets.  Further, including private industry may undermine the intent of the FOT

P3s have an essential place in our society, however, for this situation P3s are not an effective solution.  To have the greatest impact, all parties should have access to the FOT.  Use could eventually be required as a standard of care for the building management industry or as part of energy audits.  But, if a P3 private company is involved there needs to be a profit angle. Due to its niche market, the FOT will not produce sufficient advertising revenue.  And without advertising, the only profit angle is through subscriptions.

A subscription-based FOT will fail because it will deter a majority of potential users including other municipalities.  Further, if the FOT is privatized, anti-trust issues arise if use of the FOT is required

The best approach to implement the FOT is a “top down” approach that I will discuss in Part Four of our analysis.  The federal government, working with state and local agencies, must come up with this tool, so that it is accessible to all interested parties.  Perhaps federal leadership is too much for a locally convened task force to suggest, and perhaps this tool needs to start at the state level with contributions from our state universities.  What the FOT does not need is a private partner seeking profit.

There are areas where a P3 will work, and one surprising area the Task Force misses is an opportunity to suggest a partnership in finance.  The report suggests following the BerkeleyFirst distributed power program that utilizes AB 811.  As we previously discussed on the CGBB, the BerkeleyFirst program is not only innovative in attaching the debt obligations of a solar installation to property taxes, it is also innovative in allowing a private company to underwrite the financing for the installations.  This powerful P3 model epitomizes P3 success.  The private partner provides funding, and earns a fair return on investment.  The municipality reaps the reward of infrastructure development at a fraction of the cost.   Perhaps the task force was wary of opening the proverbial floodgates to private enterprise, or perhaps the task force did not want to single out Renewable Funding LLC, the underwriter in the BerkeleyFirst program.

Nonetheless, San Francisco launched GreenFinanceSF, and the city called on Renewable Funding LLC to finance the project.  BerkeleyFirst deserves a great amount of credit as the first program of this type in California, but GreenFinanceSF looks to be a broader initiative that has a longer list of eligible projects.  Unlike BerkeleyFirst which funds solar residential solar installations, GreenFinanceSF finances a long list of energy and water retrofit projects.  The California Green Building Blog will offer further analysis of the GreenFinanceSF program in the future.

The next and final installation of our analysis of the task force report will discuss a topic near and dear to my heart – the suggestion by the task force that government “lead by example.”  I am a firm believer in this approach.  This is not about government intervention, this is about leadership.  No matter where your political loyalties fall, you’ll want to read next week…

 

April 22, 2010

Happy Earth Day! Sustainable Community Interview Special!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Interview, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Photovoltaic, Solar, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Geof Syphers is the Chief Sustainability Officer at Codding Enterprises, developer of Sonoma Mountain Village, a One Planet Communities development in Rohnert Park, California that aims to be close to net zero…as a village!

We’ve written about Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO) before.  Click here to review that post. Now, as an Earth Day special, please enjoy the interview I conducted with Geof a few days ago.  Click here for the full text, or just click on the “Interviews” tab at the top of this page.

The thing that makes the interview so relevant to Earth Day is SOMO is a One Planet Community.  This means that if every community on the planet lived like the residents in SOMO, we would only use the resources available on one Earth.  As it stands now, if everyone on the planet lived like the rest of the United States, we would need multiple Earths to support our lifestyle! (Click here to take a fun, albiet non-scientific, quiz to check your sustainability footprint).

So, Geof, and the group at Codding are onto something.  Enjoy the information in the interview, and have a great Earth Day!

 

March 4, 2010

AB 510 Signed By Governor Schwarzenegger! (Part 2)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 510 on February 26, 2010 (Click here for full text of AB 510) (Click here for press release and video). We covered the basic elements of the new law in Part 1 of our coverage last week (click here for that post). Now, we turn to some other elements of the law… some of the fine print, if you will…

The law balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. (This balance, and the fact that there is no discernable impact to the General Fund, are likely the reasons the bill passed the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote.)    In addition to lowering the proposed cap from 10% to 5%, an example of concessions to utilities is found in Section (3)(l).  That section requires that customer-generators pay the Department of Water Resources for all charges that would otherwise be imposed on the customer had they not entered the net-metering arrangement.

Another significant concession is found in Section (5)(B).  Under that section, the utilities can use the energy provided through net-metering arrangements toward the Renewable Portfolio Requirements (outlined in Public Utilities Code Section 399.15 and 387).  Under previous net-metering law, utilities were not permitted to count net-metering toward these obligations.  Now, utilities have a chance to meet the aggressive target of generating 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020.  (The utilities are far from reaching the Renewable Portfolio Requirements of 20% of energy from renewables by 2010).  If California residents and businesses continue to install solar and wind power generation, the utilities have a chance to meet the portfolio requirements, but the current 5% cap will have to rise again.

On the consumer side, there are very reasonable concerns that net-metering raises the energy bill for non-metering customers.  To assuage those concerns, the bill establishes a rate-setting commission that will set net-metering compensation rates and provide a report detailing 1) the market effects of net-metering and co-energy metering, and 2) how the authority’s rate schedule ensures consumers who don’t enter net metering arrangements pay the same for power that customer-generators pay.

AB 510 reflects a state leading the way in establishing energy independence.  It is great legislation now because it doesn’t tap into the General Fund, and it encourages private businesses (e.g. Solar City or Renewable Funding, LLC).  The law is another step forward that keeps California as a leader in United States renewable energy generation.

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers