Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 29 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Washington State Passes Progressive Renewable Energy Legislation

New Germany-style Production Credit Should Spur Regional Clean Energy Market
by Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Published: May 10, 2005

Olympia, Washington [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] With Gov. Christine Gregoire's recent signature, what is being called the most progressive renewable energy legislation ever passed in a U.S. state is now a reality. The two new laws reflect a fresh policy approach to promoting renewable energy at the state level and already have the full attention of industry manufacturers who expect the measures to kick-start a new regional market in the U.S.

"This is the most important solar legislation ever introduced in any American state legislature."

- Denis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, former director of the federal Solar Energy Research Institute and current President of the Bullitt Foundation
The two bills -- SB 5101 and SB 5111 -- steamrolled their way through the state's legislature earlier this spring, winning overwhelming bipartisan support from lawmakers interested in creating a thriving market for renewable energy that would specifically foster new high-tech manufacturing in the state.

The first bill, SB 5101, is responsible for driving strong market demand for small renewable energy projects, especially solar photovoltaic (PV) energy. The law establishes a renewable energy "feed-in" production incentive, the first such application of this approach in a U.S. state. Homes and businesses with solar PV and wind power systems would earn a credit of 15 cents per kWh of electricity generated by their renewable energy systems up to $2000 annually -- roughly tailored to the yearly market output of a typical 3.5 kW PV system.

In addition to the feed-in credit, the bill is progressive because it combines economic multipliers to increase the system owner's credit if the project's components are manufactured in Washington. This can raise the 15 cent per kWh credit up to as much as 54 cents and this rate would be available for a fixed 10 year period beginning July 1, 2005.

With the first bill taking care of the demand side of the equation, the second bill would take care of the supply side by nurturing new, high-tech manufacturing of renewable energy components. SB 5111 will provide tax breaks for renewable energy businesses that currently reside in the state or choose to relocate there. And the bill goes above that to offer higher tax breaks to companies that locate themselves in economically depressed areas.


A New Policy Approach

The feed-in credit, SB5101, is particularly relevant to the larger renewable energy effort in the U.S. because it reflects a new policy approach for the state-based promotion of clean energy.

Denis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, former director of the federal Solar Energy Research Institute and current President of the Bullitt Foundation, described SB 5101 "as the most important solar legislation ever introduced in any American state legislature."

While it would represent a paradigm shift for solar legislation in the U.S., it's not an altogether new approach. Any solar PV installer trying to order or maintain a good supply of solar modules knows where else this approach has been staggeringly effective: Germany.

Since enacting a national production incentive, Germany has been a veritable black hole for solar panels, sucking up worldwide supplies of PV at a time of increasing demand and limited manufacturing capacity.

"The eyes of much of the country will be on this performance-based approach," said Tom Starrs, Chair of the American Solar Energy Society, and Vice President of Marketing and Sales with the Washington-based Bonneville Environmental Foundation. "It's a very innovative idea, I've been a strong proponent for creating incentive programs that focus on paying for performance, as opposed to capacity-based dollar per watt incentives."

Capacity-based incentives, like those in California, require the state or utilities to pay an up-front rebate for the cost of a solar PV system based on a dollar per-watt of a system's installed capacity. For example, at the current California rebate rate of $2.80 per watt, a payment of $8400 is paid out for a 3 kW system. A production-based approach provides a rebate per kWh of energy produced over a fixed period of time. It's a more gradual approach that lends itself to flexible, creative financing mechanisms. It also promotes the maximum efficiency of the solar projects over the course of their 20-30 year lifespan. In a capacity approach, since the entire rebate is dolled out all at once, there is no guarantee the solar production capabilities are maintained by the owner.

Starrs said that during his 20 years in the industry he has seen capacity-based incentives "basically fail," leading to what he thought were counter-productive results with both wind power and solar thermal. Production-based incentives were later offered to US wind power which then thrived under the new model.

"Conceptually, performance-based approaches tie the incentive more closely to what the goal is," Starrs said. "It's not to get stuff on the roof, but to produce electricity. It discourages systems that don't perform as well as they could. It creates a better match between the policy goal of supporting renewable energy and the energy itself -- and therefore it's more defensible from a public policy perspective."


Getting State Utilities on Board

In legislatures all across the country, many a worthy renewable energy bill has been crushed under the weight of influential electric utilities which have traditionally been against two items: renewable energy and mandates of any kind.

Mike Nelson, Manager of the Washington State University Northwest Solar Center, who had a technical role in crafting the legislation, said utilities have actually become some of the bill's strongest supporters.

Residents and businesses taking part in the production credit will be provided the per kWh credit (up to $2000 annually) from their local utilities but those utilities are not required to take part in the program. No mandate. What could be read as a toothless piece of legislation is really a case of offering a carrot and not a stick. The utilities are allowed to write-off the cost of providing the credits against their state taxes, so they see an inherent value in participating.

"The Public Utility Districts Association getting behind this really started to make this bill move," said John Friederichs, Conservation Director, for Ferry County PUD, one of the 64 utilities in Washington state. "If this passes the house, how can you miss, you get paid to create electricity. It's too good an idea not to pass."

So if it's a tax write-off for utilities then where does the money come from? The production credit would be paid for by future sales taxes that would be generated by an expanded sales and manufacturing base for renewable energy. And instead of one lump sum being dolled out to projects like it is in California with their capacity approach, the cost here will be spread over 10 years.

"The state is basically a spectator in this," Friederichs said. "If it encourages businesses to come here, in the end the state will make more money -- it should be an encouragement for them."

Up until 2011 there is a sales tax exemption on solar products. Once that goes away, and the market has picked up, the program should return about $20 million in net cash flow to the state, said the bill's technical advisor Mike Nelson.


Industry Eyes Washington for Manufacturing Expansion

Between owning a Honda Insight hybrid-electric car and his own solar PV system, Nelson himself describes himself as "as green as they come" but when he spoke to state lawmakers about the bills he pushed one angle above all else.

"I don't talk about green, I talk about jobs, that's why we have the bi-partisan support that we have," Nelson said. "We're losing industry, the U.S. is loosing industry, we're loosing megawatts of production capacity."

Capacity-based incentives have spawned a strong solar market in California -- with roughly 80 percent of US solar business within the state's borders. But Nelson doesn't think the incentives have done enough to spur manufacturing and job creation.

"It's great that California has a program.....that's built up the Japanese PV industry," Nelson said, cynically referring to the importation of solar PV modules from Japanese manufacturing facilities.

Ironically, Washington state used to be national leader in renewable energy manufacturing but has since ceded that position. RWE Schott Solar, one of the biggest names in solar module manufacturing, was once based in Lacey, Washington after they acquired Applied Power. Now all of RWE's North American manufacturing is based in Billerica, Massachusetts and their recent expansions have been in Alzenau, Germany and the Czech Republic.

Former Washington-based solar inverter company Trace Engineering was acquired by Canada's Xantrex Technology Inc. The company has transferred the manufacture of its residential and industrial solar and wind converters to its factory in Arlington, WA, but has outsourced some of its other manufacturing to more competitive factories in China, with a net loss of approximately 100 jobs in the state since 1999.

The relative slowdown of manufacturing could change, however, with the two measures now signed into law. As the bills were winding their way through the state's legislature, manufacturers kept a close eye on the measures since they could provide the impetus for them to make a move back into the state.

Now that the measures are law, Xantrex sees some potential positives impacts for their facility in Arlington.

"We expect this new price incentive will benefit demand for some of our Washington-manufactured products used by homeowners and small businesses," said Mossadiq S. Umedaly
Chairman Xantrex Technology. "Additionally, Xantrex manufactures some solar inverters outside of Washington and we will be evaluating the potential demand in Washington to see if these should also be manufactured in our Arlington facility as well."

Marc Roper, Vice President of sales and marketing for RWE Schott Solar, was reached for interview before the two items were signed into law, and was already hinting at what effect it might have.

"This particular legislation coupled with some economic multipliers may yield a good mix for us to build a module manufacturing facility," Roper said. "My company is in the position where we're looking to expand module manufacturing not just for the Washington market but also to supply the North and South American markets."

Roper said RWE is looking initially to low cost countries like Mexico for manufacturing but sees a number of factors with both the proposed bills and Washington state itself that could help entice a PV manufacturing move to the state. The cost of Washington electricity is some of the cheapest in the country, which lowers the cost of manufacturing. The proposed business tax breaks (in SB 5111) would be the direct benefit for a company like RWE and the state-based feed-in tariffs would solidify a local market.

"It's important to have a local market, it helps a business to understand how their products are being used in terms of product development, quality and getting engineers out there on site where the product is being used," Roper said. "Something like an advance in a small growing market is the type of thing that could tilt the decision away from a low cost country."

If RWE were to make a move to Washington, they would likely build a facility with an annual production no smaller than 20-40 MW annually with the possibility to expand beyond that.

"The performance-based incentive is an ideal form of policy," Roper said. "Making it work in Washington would be good for the whole country. For us it works out well, we have the capacity to serve North and South America, we're just looking for the place to do it - these two bills make Washington a candidate."

Both bills' principal sponsors were Democratic state Senator Eric Poulsen (D) and Republican Senator Bob Morton. Other lawmakers have sponsored the bills. For more information see the following two links.
Additional Information
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 29 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 29
May 10, 2005
I can see one small problem.How will people be able to fianace these solar power systems ? A typical home system at 2800 watts, 18 panels, can cost $20,000.00 ..Are there going to be special low interest loans available? Does anyone know how the fianacing works in the German system ?
No image available
Comment
2 of 29
May 10, 2005
I believe this is very good for renewable energy, and very good for Washington state residents also.
Keep in mind that most of the people who left Xantrex are still building power inverters in Washington, and are probably very happy to be working for local companies. And unlike the large inverter company to the north, these local business do not manufacture in the Domincan Republic or in China. Who are these companies? Magnum Energy in Everett and Outback Power in Arlington.

I do understand however the Schott is a different story, and I hope these bills will bring people like this back to Washington.

THanks
Tim
No image available
Comment
3 of 29
May 10, 2005
SB 5111 does somewhat define the manufacturing process. Here's the web address of the bill as passed, copy and paste it to see the whole bill, it's fairly short probably less than two written pages.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5111-S2.PL.htm
No image available
Comment
4 of 29
May 10, 2005
Hey this is Great! I wonder what would qaulify as "manufactured in Washington" ?
Is this defiened? Is just a part of the manufacturing process enough? I hope that it would not allow most all of the manufacturing outsourced and just a bit of it done in the state. This would do very little to help with job creation in the local area. Again I think this is great news.
No image available
Comment
5 of 29
May 11, 2005
I'm ready to jump as soon as I can get panels manufactured in Washington. The system needed to get the $2K max. cost recovery is
probably about 3-4KW at $0.432 / KWH (.15 * 1.2 * 2.4) That 2.4 multiplier for using panels made in Washington is a big deal.
At a system cost in the $25K range, that's 8% per year yield, not including the savings from not buying some electricity.
There are already silicon wafer manufacturers in Washington. Let's hope they get interested in making panels.
No image available
Comment
6 of 29
May 11, 2005
way to go washington
No image available
Comment
7 of 29
May 12, 2005
As a Californian, I can only agree with some chagrin about supporting the Japanese PV industry. Solar PV installers wait on shipments of Kyocera panels, for example, and are often stalled due to shortages. It really is a shame that our academic and government institutions haven't supported industrial job growth in renewables; our lauded University of California system does not support renewable energy research, but rather wants to team up with Bechtel to run nuke labs. A shameful travesty, really. I'm going to send copies of those bills to my local representative. Congrats!
No image available
Comment
8 of 29
May 12, 2005
I'm a Florida resident and get excited when I read hopeful policy being legislated anywhere in the US about increased solar production. Our state, governed by the president's brother, Jeb Bush, has NO incentives for alternative power production. And we live in the SUNSHINE STATE for goodness sake!!! Forgive me, I could rant on.... My question: how does the Washington legislation handle power that is generated at a home or business, is not used, and flows back into the grid. Are the local power companies required to compensate the home/business owner or do they get free electricity to resell to your neighbor? It is time for every Florida house to be covered with PV panels. We could certainly help reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Andy Bell - St. Petersburg, FL
No image available
Comment
9 of 29
May 13, 2005
I have 1.3kw array, roof mounted, 23 degree elevation, 15degree West of south, Rockville, Maryland. for 7 years. I average about 1,050KWh/year, 11% of my yearly useage w/3.5tonAC. Elec dryer, Elec stove, CF lighting
I could use a 8-10KwArray to generate 100% present useage and get a hot tub. my meter does spin backwards at times. a 3.5Kw array with MPPT will not give Utility free elec but will offset a lot of your use.
I am lobbying to get maryland to do this. BP solar is HQ 30 miles from me w/about 3,500 panel array at frederick, md
robert winfield rockville maryland
No image available
Comment
10 of 29
May 15, 2005
Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone tell me what the "credit" that we get translates into? Do we get actual dollars paid to us for the amount of KW hrs we produce? Or is this just a credit against our monthly elec. bill? This is very important in deciding to install a system on our house or not.
No image available
Comment
11 of 29
May 16, 2005
This is a wonderful initiative! Way to go Washington State. The German minimum price model should become the standard for all to follow when structuring a renewable energy program! The local manufacturing incentive is wonderful as well and should lead to a solid solar industry development!

Incidentally, is anyone aware of a secure supply of suitable silicon for ingots, wafers and solar cells that could be utilized? There is tremendous shortage of raw material supply out there....
Thank you
No image available
Comment
12 of 29
May 16, 2005
My understanding is that it's actual dollars paid. Should a certain month's kWh level generated a higher amount than the user's electric bill, they get a cash credit. The price level and cap though should keep the payback close in line with electric bills. - Editor
No image available
Comment
13 of 29
May 18, 2005
This is great! As an electrician I've been working on solar systems here in the Redwoods of Northern California for a few years now and I've been planning a move to Washington State around Fall even before hearing about this.
I'm coming! I'm coming!
No image available
Comment
14 of 29
May 18, 2005
Am I wrong or will this incentive system only work for people who are grid tied?
No image available
Comment
15 of 29
May 18, 2005
Bernadette and Arnold:

Are you listening? This is what SB1 really needs to look like -- not more of the same "CEC $2.80 per AC Watt" stuff that SB1 currently contains -- imagine the jobs that could be created if Sharp, BP Solar, Shell, Kyocera, Sanyo and GE had to build their foundries and module fab factories here in Kal-e-forn-yah...
No image available
Comment
16 of 29
May 19, 2005
Great concept!
I would like to see a government backed security based mortgage program that spreads the cost of renewables over 20 years. Then you would see massive movement towards renewables when the monthly payment was equal to or less than an average monthly energy bill.
No image available
Comment
17 of 29
May 20, 2005
Better than sliced bread! Many of us solar and wind professionals in California have been hoping that Herr Schwartzenegger would push something in this Teutonic vein down here, but no; his answer would be to convince suppliers to reduce their prices. Nonsense.

One big difference between the German and Washington models is that the equipment used in Germany need not be made there to qualify for the higher tarrifs. Sales tax revenues would be impacted in the positive if this were also the case in Washington because of the higher sales volume that would result if all equipment were allowed.

Environmental Energy
Atascadero, California
No image available
Comment
18 of 29
May 25, 2005
In the comment above the 70% credit in the 1980's was for investments in oil exploration / development when oil supplies were low.
No image available
Comment
19 of 29
May 25, 2005
In the 80's the Fed Gov't gave a tax credit of 70% ! Get that? 70% !!!!! of the invested amount. If they really wanted to, and gave even a 30% credit, we could quickly convert to the renewables and be independent of foreign oil along with a much cleaner environment and lower cost energy (once the infrastructure was built), as well as have much better relations with all other countries (not needing to exploit and rule them so much) resulting in much less concern for terrorism, costs, loss of life, etc., etc., etc.
No image available
Comment
20 of 29
June 10, 2005
As a former student in Spokane, Wa,
i think this is very good.
We do have this already in Germany and we are working to get costs down.
a system should not be above 6500 Dollars/ KW. If you need any contact, pls contact me with the following email:

kreuzbergerspengler@t-online.de

Lets get the energy costs down.

Another thing. Is this law applying to wind, too?? and bioenergy??
Thanks

Bernd
No image available
Comment
21 of 29
June 13, 2005
I agree that SB5101 is an excellent start but it does not really address systems of significant size to "make a difference" at only 1,333 kWh of power max per year?

We need to include the other renewable systems such as agricultural anaerobic digesters which are addressing two crucial issues, manure management from large farms and renewable energy. Methane from biogas can be used to directly generate electircity or converted to LNG or CNG for transportation "off-site" for use as propane replacement, natural gas, or liquified vechicle fuel. Large methane to high quality diesel fuel are already being constructed off shore by BP and Exxon.

The bill needs to include the biogas industry and farms who can produce significant quantities of energy (50kWh to 2000 + kWh also) then we can start to really make progress with renewables!
No image available
Comment
22 of 29
June 15, 2005
A 3KW system costs roughly $28,000 to install if you can get the panels and the installer wants to stay in business and actually make a profit. A 3 KW system in California under optimal conditions produces roughly 5000 kwh. I imagine in Washington that can be reduced by 20 percent(4000 kwh). Now since we can't get panels or inverters made in Washingon the customer annual saving would be something like 30 cents/kwh generated. A whopping 1200 dollars a year. Factoring in opportunity cost thats what, a 35 year payback.
No image available
Comment
23 of 29
June 20, 2005
This is a start but currently doesn't address technology that can be of significance such as biomass. 3 to 5 kW solar arrays, etc. are too costly and of minimal effect to make any difference. Lets get serious and implement a "real" renewables portfolio by requiring utilities to provide "X" amount of their enery by "Y" date from renewables to really start doing something serious and meaningful re revewables. This doesn't cost the State a cent but really gets the utilities involved!
No image available
Comment
24 of 29
July 12, 2005
Solar is "too costly" and of "minimal effect"? We could have said that about the Edison light bulb, the personal computer, and the wind turbine.
There have been repeated efforts in WA to pass an "RPS". It's is a great idea, just not one that the leg. has interest in. Politics is the art of the possible.
Central to "selling" 5101 was the argument that it would create LOCAL industry. Growing a local cluster of industries was the key to developing legislative support.
The WA leg. passed the bills unanimously in both houses, during a session that was facing a 2 billion dollar shortfall, at a time of extreme division between R's and D's, solar provided common ground
A careful reading of 5101 reveals provisions for both small wind and on-farm biomass. The intention of the legislation was not to provide free RE systems, but rather to share the risk between the state and end users.
As to sales tax, WA does not tax RE hardware.
No image available
Comment
25 of 29
September 6, 2005
I agree with the majority; this is awesome news. PV solar already pays for itself within about 10-15 years depending on the supplier, instaler, location, and cost per kwh of the buyer, but now it will pay for itself a lot faster. I had heard about the rebate before, but i didn't realize that it was anual, holy s**t! a $20,000 4kw pv system now would pay for itself in about 7 years! Solar rocks harder than ever now.
No image available
Comment
26 of 29
June 8, 2006
It is a start, but as with all legislative action it will require constant attention and fine tuning in the future.
Keep your representatives to the legislature informed of the need for continuing progressive action to promote a Greener Washington.
For some info on Washington based PV industries check out " Solar Grade Silicon LLC " and
"Advanced Silicon Materials LLC ". With the demise of computer grade silicon related industries, hopefully the solar PV industries will be able to pick up the slack, provide local jobs and more affordable PV systems in the future.
No image available
Comment
27 of 29
August 10, 2006
Bills sb 5101 and 5111 were passed a year ago...has there been any action from PV manufacturers in terms of relocating to Washinton State? How long would it take to get a PV panel plant up and running? As Mark (5.11.2005) said, that 2.4 multiplier (if Wash state product is used) is huge. Catch 22 ? where manufacturers won't risk investment before demand rises, and customers won't buy WA manufactured PV since there aren't any manufactureres in state? With Federal 30% tax credit (no cap on commercial), the State's 15 to 36 cents/kWh, each year for 9 years ($2000 per year cap), and the Green Tag 5 cent/kWh for 5 years...makes gets life cycle cost very low, indeed. Seems a 5 KW system (no bat storage) would cost ~ $40 K, offset by incentives of about $31.5 K and avoided energy purchase of about $7.5K = total $39K.
No image available
Comment
28 of 29
December 28, 2007
Is there an updated list (link) of net-metering policies for each state? The latest I have is from 2004.
No image available
Comment
29 of 29
March 3, 2009
My company actually installs both wind and solar. I have all of the information. If any is interested let me know.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
Geothermal Energy Association GoGreenSolar.com Black & Veatch Corporation TurboCare Krannich Solar Inc. VentureBeat Navigant Consulting
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters