article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (4) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 23, 2009

Oregon Solar Bill Raises Questions about Utility Ownership of RECs

Oregon, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The Oregon legislature is considering a solar bill that supporters say could ensure development of up to 100 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity in the state by 2020. However, because the bill would automatically grant utilities the renewable energy certificates (REC) generated by system owners, some businesses are worried it could reduce payback options for customers in the state and undermine the program.

In 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission issued a proposed decision that would have given all solar RECs from customers to power providers. The CPUC eventually reversed the decision because of overwhelming opposition from industry professionals who said it would reduce payback options for solar system owners.

A REC is the environmental value of every megawatt-hour of renewable electricity produced. Utilities in many states must purchase the credits to prove compliance with renewable portfolio standard obligations.

Utilities often support guaranteed ownership of RECs, saying that it reduces the cost of reaching RPS targets and therefore reduces the cost of the program to ratepayers. Solar industry professionals claim that such moves reduce the options for customers and strip away rightful ownership of the environmental benefits of their solar energy system.

HB 3039, now in committee, may soon be considered by the Oregon House. The two part bill first sets up a program for developing 20 MW of large-scale projects sized between 500 kilowatts (kW) and 5 MW. The requirement for utilities can potentially be raised to 100 MW, depending on program performance. This program offers a hybrid “net metering then feed-in-tariff” payback program for electric company customers.

The second part of the bill sets up a pilot 25-MW program through 2015 that offers a 15-year feed-in tariff (FIT) for smaller-scale systems. Three quarters of the targets will be achieved by installing systems below 50 kW.

There is also a separate bill, HB 2021 that sets up a FIT for smaller projects and does not include the 20-100 MW program.

Under any of these programs, utilities would get full ownership of all RECs generated by customers. The large-scale program designed for large scale systems would offer a “multiplier,” meaning utilities would get two RECs for every one REC generated.

Supporters say it gives the utility more incentive to participate. Detractors say that it waters down the program, effectively cutting the environmental impact of the clean electricity in half.

In 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a proposed decision that would have given all solar RECs from customers to established power providers. The CPUC eventually reversed the decision because of overwhelming opposition from industry professionals who said it would reduce payback options for solar system owners.

If and when the U.S. Congress passes a carbon cap and trade system and federal RPS, RECs will certainly become much more valuable. This latest question about utility ownership of RECs is likely to stir up debate in Oregon about who should reap that value.

Reader Comments (4)
 
No image available
April 23, 2009
Nevada requires all RECs (or PECs as they are referred to in Nevada statutes) to be the property of the utility, if the customer-generator accepts the statutory rebate offered by the utility. See Nevada Revised Statutes 701B.290. A bill was introduced in the current Session providing for apportionment of PECs but the provision to this effect was amended out of the bill.
Comment 1 of 4
No image available
April 23, 2009
There are provisions in this bill that would effectively eliminate diversity in the Oregon solar market, eliminating the current incentive system with full knowledge that the RECs will be worth substantial more as the BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) rates jump 15% this year, on there way to match California's.

This is an effective power grab by members of Pacific Power, the IBEW, Sun Edison, and others (http://oseiahome.ning.com/) claiming to represent the best interests of the solar community in Oregon.

We are scrambling to educate our Representatives about the long term effects of this, and related legislation to come.

Here, our community thrives on diversity. A diverse grid, with an focus on smaller systems (<250kW) means more jobs for Oregon's installers, designers, engineers, contractors, electricians, steel and aluminum fabricators, financiers, etc. In the long run, very few benefit from this type of system, supporting only large scale commercial installations.
Comment 2 of 4
No image available
April 24, 2009
I like how Oregon is approaching this situation. For homeowners with smaller installations, RECs aren't going to bring a windfall of cash. Even if 1 REC costs $10 per megawatt, a 5KW installation will at best (6hours/day)generate 10,000KW/year, the homeowner would receive ~$100/year. Again, that is at best. A FIT would generate much more money for the homeowner.

The commercial installs will want the RECs to help in their pro forma. It makes their numbers look better for investors. I'd like Oregon to give the owners - small or large, the CHOICE to decide which path they want.
Comment 3 of 4
No image available
April 27, 2009
There are two proposed bills. 3038 was proposed by a consumer group, as I understand it. 3039 is the industry-proposed bill. The bills are quite different. It's pretty unclear what is going to happen with these bills. Because 3038 would be ratepayer-financed, the argument by industry will be that it is regressive. The industry bill seems to be angling for subsidies. Because neither bill seems to let the rate float, I don't really trust them. Who knows what is going to happen with the economy? You can search by Oregon HB 3038, and it comes up several entries down. I first heard about 3038 on KBOO radio. I'm not sure all the generators are on with 3039. The state economy is in such dire circumstances, I'm not sure either of these is going to float to the top of legislators' priority lists.
Comment 4 of 4
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Universal Energy EC Harris LLP National Hydropower Association Michigan Economic Development Corporation Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation Krannich Solar Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo