Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: SEIA, IREC, MA
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 (11) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
2 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
June 23, 2009

How NJ Rose To #2 in US Solar Power

by Bob Haavind, Editor-at-large, Photovoltaics World
Philadelphia, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

While it's not surprising that sun-drenched California leads the US with 67% of the country's grid-connected solar power, how did a little East Coast state like New Jersey gain the No. 2 spot with nearly 9% (and double the power of No. 3 state Colorado)? Making this achievement more remarkable is that in 2001 New Jersey had only six PV installations, and now there are nearly 4000 generating >85 MW.

Instead of building all their own renewable energy power generators, the utilities can also meet these requirements by buying SRECs in an open auction from installers and operators of distributed solar facilities. One SREC is earned for every 1000 kWh of generated energy, and its price is capped at $711, although the trade value is usually less than that.

The story behind this progress was told at a session at PV America, a new exhibition/conference that took place in Philadelphia, June 8-10. The recipe for the "secret sauce" that made it all possible was revealed early on by Dr. Jeanne Fox, president of the NJ Board of Public Utilities.

"I believe that New Jersey is the best place to do solar in the country, policy-wise," Fox explained. Her background includes stints both within the electric utility industry and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); she confessed she is not technical, having been a philosophy major who went on to get a PhD in law at Rutgers. As an EPA administrator, she said she went to a briefing in Washington DC on the coming impact of climate change — it was so scary, she said, that she realized the electric utility where she had worked would have to make dramatic changes in the future.

So she campaigned for a job where she could help do something about it, and came on as the head of the public utilities board in NJ in 2002. At that time, the state offered rebates for solar installations, but she found out how difficult it was to get one when she tried to help a solar facility get hooked to the grid in Kearney, NJ, in 2004-2005. Out of that experience came new standards for two-way net metering and for interconnection to the grid. In addition, it was later decided to get away from a rebate system to a free-market mechanism. While this would take the onus off of taxpayers and ratepayers, even more importantly it would enable long-term contracts.

A system of solar renewable energy credits (SREC) was developed, and $3M was spent on the first SREC tracking and trading system in the U.S., according to Fox. New Jersey now gets fees from other states for the use of this pioneering system.

Another factor helping the state to boost alternate energy was the view of Governor John Corzine, who realized that environment and energy policies are interlinked, but also saw a business opportunity. "Minimizing our carbon footprint can and should go hand-in-hand with increasing economic vitality," he stated. This view drove NJ's "Master Plan" goals, according to Fox. These include:

  • Reducing energy use (and greenhouse gas emissions) in the state 20% by 2020.
  • Switch to 30% electric power from renewable energy by 2020, including 2.12% from solar.

"That means we will need 3100 MW from solar by 2020," Fox explained. To get this rolling, the state budgeted $260M to invest in stimulating solar industry and use over the 2002-2008 period. If rebates were used instead of the SREC trading system, it would cost the taxpayers more than $3B to reach the 3100 MW by 2020.

Instead, there is a steadily rising level of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that the electric utilities in the state must meet each year, according to Maureen Quaid, renewable energy market leader, NJ Clean Energy Program, Conservation Services Group. The RPS targets each year are based on a percentage of the total electric load, she explained. Instead of building all their own renewable energy power generators, the utilities can also meet these requirements by buying SRECs in an open auction from installers and operators of distributed solar facilities. One SREC is earned for every 1000 kWh [1 MWh] of generated energy, and its price is capped at $711, although the trade value is usually less than that.

Solar is now spreading across the state to schools, hospitals, funeral homes, and residences, as well as commercial and business sites, according to Fox. She cited a Johnson & Johnson solar array over a parking lot next to the Amtrak tracks, and a massive rooftop system at Hall's Warehouse Corp. in South Plainfield, NJ. This last facility was built and operated by a California company to supply electricity to Hall's huge complex of refrigerated storage units. Hall's put up no frontend investment, but now pays the installer and operator for the electricity supplied at a lower rate than it was paying to the local power company.

"There is still a bureaucracy, including the federal government, as well as the state," Fox explained, but with clear standards, tradable credits, and the ability to work out long-term contracts, solar can make good business sense. 

To make the SREC system realistic, she said, there are measurements and trades are based on real outputs, and costs can be spread over 15 years. The rebate system is being scaled back; it still is used for smaller installations — up to 10kW for homeowners, and up to 50kW for small businesses, according to Fox — but will be phased out in 2012.

While this ambitious program has made great strides, some fine-tuning is still needed, based on comments and questions from audience members doing solar business in NJ. The value that can be placed on future credits, for example, isn't known until the October auction, leaving very little time to file federal paperwork, one installer complained. Fox explained that the utilities claimed they needed the time to develop bids, but she promised to discuss the matter with them.

There was also new concern about rules changing after long-term contracts were agreed upon, and Fox said she intended to stay on the job for years. With support coming from the top, and the willingness to be flexible when needed, NJ appears to have a bright future in solar.

Bob Haavind is editor-at-large for Photovoltaics World magazine and SST.

This article was republished with permission from Photovoltaics World. PV World is part of the Renewable Energy World Network.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (11)
 
No image available
June 24, 2009
The title of the article, and of the table, are incorrect and misleading. They are both clearly about PHOTOVOLTAIC, not inclusive SOLAR power.

As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One, Nevada has about 3 times the solar power as 34 MWe given here, when its solar thermal electric power plant is included.

Nevada clearly has much more solar electric power than the 70 MWe of New Jersey.

Solar Thermal Electric (STE) power costs roughly half that of photovoltaic, and as demonstrated by the Andasol plants (each 50 MWe), these technologies can economically deliver power for hours after sunset.

According to the paper delivered by Nobel Laureate Carlo Rubbia at the Seville SOLARPACES meeting, ~1% of earth's surface can deliver the projected world electricity demand of 2050 with STE.

More specifically, according to Rubbia the most compact STE technology currently under development (linear Fresnel) requires only about 15 sq km (~6 sq miles) per average (over 24 hour, 365 day cycle) gigawatt (1000 MWe).

Most current STE plants have well-spaced concentrator mirrors, and use more land. It is well established that solar PV as well as STE use LESS land than coal, nuclear or hydro power -- when mining activities, waste disposal and the size of fertile valleys submerged by dams are included. See EPRI of Palo Alto, Calif . . .
Comment 1 of 11
No image available
June 24, 2009
Flett Exchange, LLC has run a market for the buying and selling of New Jersey SRECs for over two years. Over 650 solar owners in New Jersey utilize our market to sell their SRECs. Our market is internet based, runs 24 hours a day and is totally transparent. Sellers funds are mailed the same day they sell. We publish a daily settlement price for all SRECs traded which is on www.flettexchange.com

In the last two years we have spoken to thousands of New Jersey individuals and corporations who have installed solar and sell their SRECs to pay off their solar system. It is good to see people who do the right thing for the environment also have it turn out to be the best investment they could have made in the last few years. The NJ BPU has done a great job with solar and we hope it will be a model followed by other states. The end result is a clean source of energy in NJ along with new business opportunities for installers, solar consultants, sales, investment and so on.
Comment 2 of 11
No image available
June 24, 2009
Mr. Scheffler brings up a good point. Too often when people think of solar they think of PV, which is much more expensive and produces power for a much smaller part of the day than solar thermal.

Additionally, the headline is also misleading because it speaks of INSTALLED CAPACITY not actual production. Production is what we are all worried about not capacity. PV produces the equivalent of approximately 3.6 hours of rated production a day (on average).

One look at NREL's solar resource map tells you that New Jersey is the wrong place to install PV and will produce a fraction of what would be produced in the Southwest.

This periodical should be leading the way in introducing relevant terminology to the discussion.
Comment 3 of 11
No image available
June 24, 2009
Add one more voice to the statistics issue. There is an old expression, figures never lie but liars always figure.

If the industry is so solid why does no one tout the production numbers?

That solar thermal out-performs PV is a given (on a cost per BTU basis). Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar PV?

Hype is to investment bubbles like lying is to scams/fraud. It's just that the former is harder to prove in court.

Good luck with "this periodical". It was industry oriented before it was bot, it appears to have gotten worse.
Comment 4 of 11
No image available
June 24, 2009
Oops, one must read before posting :)

I should have said "Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar water heating?" instead of "Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar PV?".
Comment 5 of 11
June 25, 2009
Think with respect to solar, solar thermal systems either being active or passive, with a collector, storage tank, controller, pump, and other components - direct or indirect, and whether use of a heat dump - space heating, PV controlled, ... would be more complex than solar photovoltaic (PV) systems which are on or off grid, - typically on grid - with an array, balance of systems and a point of connection. If solar thermal systems are simplified, along with maintenance and monitoring, ... may become more prevalent?
Comment 6 of 11
No image available
June 28, 2009
Funny that sunny Florida is NOT on the chart?! I tried for ten years to get snowbirds to install PV. The payback is reduced for in the summer months (peak power production) the residents are not there (up north). Solar thermal panels were the norm 90 years ago, today they're all electric. But that mouse brings tourists!! With global warming most of Florida is going under, don't look at the Dutch?!
Comment 7 of 11
July 1, 2009
The industry silence on the incredible success of the SREC program in NJ is deafening. The cost is currently at $700/MWh ... that means a typical 10kW system will generate about $10K per year. That's right. That's above and beyond the electricity saved (which will probably be about a $2000 savings). There is no state program in existence with such an incredible payback. It makes the stock market a joke in comparison.

Now the above discussion on PV vs Thermal ... obviously Thermal has a much better payback, but to make it truly useful for distributed use (not utility scale - that's another subject) requires tearing up one's floor, and is useful only in the winter. Well guess what? Where the sun is strongest they don't pay much on heating anyway.

Yes, it does seem a crime so much is paid in a far less efficient technology (PV) than Thermal, but the promise for PV in the long run is much greater. they're getting it down to $1/W, and while that seems like a lot ... how much will you spend on electricity over the next 25 years?

Ultimately solar installers should be installing PV and thermal, but it's programs like this that drive the technology to something that will give coal a run for it's money. Thermal never will (except in Utility scale, and that's not what this article is about, and who cares what technology is at that scale so long as it's cheapest - that means thermal, but who cares - utilities make that decision and and these programs don't play into those scenarios).
Comment 8 of 11
No image available
July 8, 2009
i don't understand the math in david austin's comment. where i went to school $700 x 10 = $7K, not $10K. moreover, vintage 2009 SRECs are selling for around $675. if there are buyers paying $700, i'd like to know who they are.
Comment 9 of 11
No image available
Anonymous
August 12, 2009
Blackrooster and Dave Austin just to clear some things up... You are basing SREC return on system size not system production. I live in NJ and have a 9.8 kW system on a southern exposure roof. My system has consistently produced over 13,000 kWhs annually which earns me 13 SRECS (1 per 1,000 kWh) that I have sold for $680 each for a total of $8,840. I was lucky to get my system installed when the state rebate was very generous plus not long after installation the state increased the SREC price. My return on investment was just 3 years.
Comment 10 of 11
No image available
August 14, 2009
With respect to comment #3 above: "New Jersey is the wrong place to install PV." Try telling that to the Germans. The northern tip of Germany is the same lattitude as Juneau, Alaska, and the country is very cloudy in comparison to even New Jersey. Yet Germany's Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) has cause an explosion in PV adoption, made it the center of the universe for PV technology and installations, and their renewables industry (solar, wind, etc.) now sports more jobs than their own automotive industry. Last year, Germany absorbed about half of the global PV manufacturing output (> 2GW!)...this for a country of ~80M people.

Clearly, policy trumps logic, and in this case accomplishes the goal of spurring adoption and pushing us down the learning curve to reduce the cost of PV.

While, perhaps capital inefficient in the near-term, we are all long-term beneficiaries of their visionary policies.
Comment 11 of 11
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
Sonobond Ultrasonics GreenBeat Garrad Hassan America Inc. ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe Magnum Energy Inc. BP Solar
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo