The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Mystery: How Much Will Californians Pay for Renewable Energy?

Ucilia Wang, Contributing Editor
December 04, 2012  |  25 Comments

How much will Californians pay for the growing amount of renewable electricity now that large solar farms have begun to take shape in some of the remote corners of the state? That's an intriguing question that seems to draw no good answers.

A report by the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state agency that studies state government agencies and recommends policy changes, released a report yesterday that looked at California’s efforts to get 33 percent of its electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020. The report warned that regulators and policy makers appeared to lack a good understanding of the rate increases that will come as a result of achieving this 2020 goal.

“The commission’s concerns center on reliability and a lack of clarity regarding the aggregated costs of implementing the state’s consolidated energy goals,” the report said. “The failure to assure reliability or an unanticipated spike in rates could sour Californians on renewable energy policy, which would have repercussions nationwide and beyond.”

The commission wants Gov. Brown to take charge and come up with good estimates for the rate impacts and figure out whether the various regulations and agencies that are in place to achieve the renewable energy mandate will in fact enable the state to reach its energy and environmental goals efficiently. Such a comprehensive assessment is necessary and should be made public so that Californians won’t be surprised by any sharp rate increases, the commission said in the report. 

The state has always prided itself on passing progressive environmental legislation. The renewable energy goal, along with plans to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 levels by 2020, have set California apart from rest of the country. But implementing these goals also have required a steep learning curve for regulators – including the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission – as they tweak and tinker with rules to accommodate efforts to achieve the goals.

The utilities commission, for example, has approved solar power sales agreements between solar farm developers and utilities knowing that the contracts were more expensive than bids submitted during the same time. The commissioners typically reasoned that the higher costs were justified to help utilities integrate renewable energy into the grid and to make sure the state could achieve the 33 percent renewable energy goal by 2020. In some cases, state regulators approved many projects so close to one another partly to make sure the developers could take advantage of a federal tax incentive that was about to expire.

Although solar energy development is newer than, say, wind energy generation in the state, solar energy is poised to play a bigger role in the state’s electricity supply over the next decade or so. There is far more flexibility in where solar energy equipment could be installed – from the roofs of warehouses and homes to large tracks of land in the desert. Wind and geothermal energy development, in contrast, face more restrictions on where they could find ample wind and underground steam reservoirs to run power plants. Solar electricity is still more expensive than fossil fuel-based power, though its cost is falling.

Giant solar farms are just beginning to materialize in California. BrightSource Energy is building a 392 MW project in Ivanpah, on the eastern edge of the state. First Solar and SunPower are setting up two projects that will total 800 MW in the Carrizo Plain in central California (see my photos of the two projects).

I’ve asked the utilities commission for any estimates on the potential rate increases as a result of enforcing the renewable energy mandate. Terrie Prosper, the commission’s spokeswoman, told me  earliert this year that she didn’t have those figures available partly because many factors could alter the forecast along the way. For example, solar and wind farms can’t produce power around the clock, so they will need backup power to make up for any shortfall in order to meet demand. The backup power will likely come from natural gas power plants. The price for natural gas, though low now, will likely increase in the coming years, so the cost of pairing renewable energy generation with natural gas power plants could shift significantly.

The utilities commission's energy is doing a 5-year rate forecast, and so far it showsthat there will likely be an overall rate increase of 2-3 percent per year on average (adding in inflation), Prosper said. The need for infrastructure improvements -- replacing aging power plants and transmission lines, for example -- will drive most of the rate increases even if there were no renewable energy mandate, Prosper said in an email today. 

The CPUC’s Energy Division has been working on a 5-year rate forecasting project and its analysis shows that overall rates will increase on average by 2-3 percent per year over the next 5 years. This tracks inflation. The drivers of the rate increase are the general need for infrastructure improvements, most of which would be needed even if there were no renewable energy mandate.  So it's still unclear what will be the impact of the shift to using more renweable electricity.

Prosper also said there is no legislative mandate for the utilities to do a rate impact analysis of their efforts to comply with the renewable energy mandate.

In a press release from May this year, Pacific Gas & Electric said, “The costs of the RPS program have only begun to appear on customer bills, as projects begin to come online in significant quantities. PG&E is aware of these costs, and will mitigate them whenever possible. We believe the total cost of the RPS program will increase rates one to two percent per year, until 2020.” I asked Southern California Edison then for its own rate impact estimate and was told that it hadn’t done the calculations.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the consumer advocate within the California Public Utilities Commission, responded to the Little Hoover Commission report by stating that its own analysis showed state residents will likely face a rate increase of 5-9 percent total by 2020 to help pay for the premium of renewable energy. 

Lead image: Mystery Money via Shutterstock

25 Comments

Register To Comment
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 8, 2012
Twenty years from now First Solar/XYZ Wind Farm/whomever will have recovered their capital and financing expenses. They will be able to bid their price much lower and still make the same, or better profits. Being sans-fuel they will bring prices down in a way that paid of coal and gas plants could never do.

--

I think the payback period for my $10k solar system could be calculated in hours. PG&E wanted $300,000 to run a line to my house.
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
December 8, 2012
We have finally had a couple of sunny days in my neck of the woods. My little PV system is back to generating some sunny day capacity level power (give or take 22 kwh/day at this time of the year). You bring up an interesting point: Bob- "As we go along more and more wind turbines and solar panels will age past their "20 year payback" period and the cost of the electricity coming from them will drop in price. Significantly."

I saw a web post recently entitled- "EIA Levelized Costs Can Be Misleading" http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/ . That post provided a web link to some new data from the eia you might find interesting http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html. The eia used a 7.5% cost of capital rate in their cost assumptions. I hope the CPUC follows TURN's suggestion that the current 10 to 11% cost of capital used in CA be reduced. When I put my system in place back in 2006 I was OK with payback period of 10 to 12 years. The actual payback period for my system is tracking to this goal. When it actually gets to a payoff point is up in the air as I do not have any real- as in a legally binding- contract with PG&E as to the benefits that I will receive for the kwhs I send to the grid. I do calculate my economic benefits compared to what I would of paid PG&E for my electrical energy needs.

The large utility scale RE projects that the ISO's have signed to meet the RES are must take long term PPA legally binding contracts that allowed the contracts that say First Solar signed with PG&E and SCE to be sold to NRG, etc. I concur with you that after the PPA contract period NRG will have to renegotiate it's contract terms with PG&E and SCE. Like you I assume the price 20 years from now will be less for the generation from the facilities then it is now. I do not expect NRG to give up the contracts before they are required to do so. EIA expects the price of natural gas to be low for a few years.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 7, 2012
6.12 - Inflation happens. Let's set that aside, OK?

Now, are electricity prices aside from inflation likely to rise in the short term? I expect so. If nothing else we are burning through the glut of natural gas which brought prices very low. Predictions are that NG prices will rise next year and that will pull prices up some. NG is now producing about 31% of our electricity (US avg, first half 2012).

New wind and solar coming off line will be more expensive than paid-off coal being shut down. (If you only look at the price of the electricity and ignore the health and environmental costs of coal.)

What I'm talking about is a few decades down the road. Once we've installed a sizable amount of wind and solar and lived through the 20 year payoff period.

First half of 2012 we got 3.5% of our electricity from non-hydro renewables. We'll add more next year and the year after. As we go along more and more wind turbines and solar panels will age past their "20 year payback" period and the cost of the electricity coming from them will drop in price. Significantly.

Think of buying a new car. The first years your car eats a bunch of dollars because you're paying off the cost of the car along with finance cost. Once the car is paid for then the monthly cost of driving drops to a small percent of what it had been. (Now think about how the cost would drop if your car needed no fuel.)
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
December 7, 2012
Bob (comment 20),

In regards to the costs you are going to have to pay for a kwh of electrical energy the costs are not going to be going down as PG&E's costs to provide you service are going up. Even with my little PV system I am planning for increases in the 3 to 8% per year for the next few years. For 2014 it looks like on AVERAGE we should be planning for a 6.4% increase in our costs for electrical energy as noted in your December blue bill insert (Notification of Application Filing Of PG&E 2014 General Rate Case GRC (A. 12-11-009)-
http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/explanationofbill/billinserts/

If you happen to get natural gas from PG&E, then you might want to know that their requested rate increase for residential bundled service is 15.3%.
Marco Bonvini
Marco Bonvini
December 7, 2012
@Bob_Wallace @Ucilia As Italian PV developer and installer, I may confirm the cost of solar installation in Germany and Italy is already about 1,2 €/Wp (1,6 USD) for large plants and 1,8 € (2,4 USD) for commercial roof-top plants. On the other hand, the cost of the land and for the grid-connection might be high (up to 0,15 USD/W each). I guess a ten-year experience along the learning curve drove down the costs for the design and the implementation of PV plants to almost a phisical limit over here. There are only modules - and inverter especially - that still have margins to shrink their prices to reduce the overall cost below a 1€/Wp (1,3 USD/Wp). Thank you.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 6, 2012
Longer term I think we are all looking at cheaper electricity.

LCOE is generally figured on a 20 year basis.

Wind turbines last at least 50% longer than that. The original turbines at Altamont Pass are just now being replaced with taller, more efficient turbines after 30 years in service. That's ten years of fuel-free production. New designs should last longer.

Our oldest operating PV panels are now 30 years old and have lost little output. That's ten years of fuel-free electricity at a very low price. They may keep producing for a few, or many decades of almost free electricity.

The most promising large scale storage system at the moment is Ambri's liquid metal battery which should be very cheap to manufacture. Guestimated at two cents per kWh. And I can't see anything in it that should wear out.

The real cost of wind-electricity might be the current LCOE of 5 cents divided by two or more. The real cost of solar-electricity will likely fall to five cents divided by two, four, something. Storage at two cents divided by something.

Transition away from fossil and nuclear fuel and we could be looking at electricity at an insignificant cost.
JSM @AltWatt
JSM @AltWatt
December 6, 2012
Yes, true (regarding incompatibility of CSI incentives and PPA's). I was in a hurry and spaced out on that. This means that these PPA prices received only the Federal ITC in terms of formal incentives.
J GIBBLE
J GIBBLE
December 6, 2012
jsm-altwatt:

The CSI incentive (rebate) is not available for projects over 1MW, nor to projects that is selling power to the utility under a PPA.

It is only for net-metered projects under 1MW.

I agree that the people have spoken that they are in favor of RPS requirements and want cleaner energy. I also agree with Bob Wallace that the cost of electricity in CA will decrease over time, especially in relation to the cost of coal. This will be due to efficiencies in utility equipment and consumer products, digital and smart meter advances, and the costs of coal being recognized and regulated, such as in the cap-and-trade program, and insurance rates for health and property.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
December 6, 2012
We have a saying in the trade: if you can't measure it, you can't improve it; if you don't measure it, you wont. The California market seems extremely opaque. You have supervisory body of sorts but they depend on the advice of the players. California itself is divided into several quasi-independent markets. A substantial portion of supply is out-sourced. It's quite possible that nobody knows the big picture. A reliance on obscure mechanisms for incenting renewable energy plus the privacy of commercial purchase agreements further clouds the picture. At the top, there is a regulatory agency that permits rates but doesn't actually manage the system.
In regimes that use FiTs, renewable costs are more transparent, which may be to the detriment of renewables as the cost structure for other generation is difficult to asses and, in the long run, virtually unpredictable.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 6, 2012
Here's some new data on PV solar making the cost of electricity cheaper...

"RECORD temperatures across Queensland have helped show solar power units on private homes are keeping peak electricity demand down in rural areas of the state, a utility says.

Ergon Energy, which supplies regional areas of the state outside Brisbane and the south east corner, says the most noticeable impact is on the mid-afternoon peak loads.

Temperatures on Tuesday soared to 40 degrees across much of Queensland, with new records for December were set in the southeast, and while they dropped slightly on Wednesday, temperatures were still above the monthly average.

With solar power units in regional areas capable of generating around 173 megawatts (MW), Ergon says as much as 150mw is flowing back into the system from private homes.

...

"A reduced peak demand reduces the need for more investment in new substations or increasing the capacity of existing substations and powerlines and this takes the pressure off rising power prices.""

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/solar-power-keeps-peak-loads-down/story-fn3dxiwe-1226530773630
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
December 6, 2012
Thanks for letting us know about the Little Hoover report! I was unable to download the report yesterday.

In regards to SCE estimate of what it is going to cost them to bring RE on line I think you might want to contact the General Rate Case Project Manager that is required to provide documented evidence to the CPUC to justify their costs (and then how the costs get allocated). His contact information is located here- http://asset.sce.com/Documents/About%20SCE/A11-06-007_Rule13_1_SCE_NoticeofEvidentiaryHearing.pdf

There is a Table (Table 2-4 PG&E Cumulative Impacts of 33% RES on Non-Care Residential Rates) that PG&E provided to the CPUC, in their 2012 Rate Design Window Application (from the 2/29/2012 "Prepared Testimony") that denotes how they determine the "RPS Premiums": "costs exceeding the cost of natural gas based generation".

A few years back I determined the cash flow for a RE project for a local water agency. Calculating the agencies cash flow was rather straight forward. The price PG&E would be paying for the RE at different times of the day and year was based on published Time of Delivery (TOD) factors and the Market Referent price.

I am 100% sure that SCE knows exactly how much they are going to be paying for the RE projects they have approved and what the premium is in "costs exceeding the cost of natural gas based generation." Why SCE had/has a TOD factor that is appreciably greater then PG&E's at super peak times I didn't look into.

For a RE contract, 25 year PPA, with PG&E that falls under the CPUC 2009 Energy Division Resolution E-4298 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_RESOLUTION/111386.htm . PG&E will be paying $.2392 kwh at Super Peak times during the June- September time period. See- "Appendix B: Utility Time-of- Delivery (TOD) periods and factors" with a Market Price Referent of $.10852/kwh. SCE on their other hand will be paying more for RE at super peak times as their TOD factor is 3.13 vs PG&E (2.205).
ANONYMOUS
December 6, 2012
I don't know why anyone thinks it's a mystery. The California PUC published a highly-circulated report in 2009 that estimated an average rate increase of about 7% to go from 20% to 33% RPS: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1865C207-FEB5-43CF-99EB-A212B78467F6/0/33PercentRPSImplementationAnalysisInterimReport.pdf.
John Moes
John Moes
December 6, 2012
Make a solar powered air conditioner. It should produce the most energy just when the demand is greatest. Heat water with the hot air produced by the conditioner before it heats up the atmosphere.
Jorge Alcauza
Jorge Alcauza
December 5, 2012
Yes Bob, that's a key point. We are not paying the health or environmental damages in the electricity bill.
Here in Europe we have another issue, we do not have oil or gas (except the North Sea wells which are almost empty), we have to import these fuels (in Spain we have to import almost 90% of the energy we need) and renewable energy is the only way to reduce it.
JSM @AltWatt
JSM @AltWatt
December 5, 2012
Details are sparse, but at least the price was public (which is unusual for a PPA). http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/15/palo-alto-enters-25-year-solar-energy-contract/

I would bet that the standard California Solar Initiative incentive and the Federal ITC's were utilized by the project developers.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 5, 2012
jsm - can you flesh that out a bit? A 20 year PPA? Some sort of inflation factor or locked in for the duration?

What role, if any, do subsidies play in that price?
JSM @AltWatt
JSM @AltWatt
December 5, 2012
Exactly what utilities are paying for PPA's is unfortunately more opaque than it ought to be. However, recently Palo Alto signed a deal for $77/mWh (it would have been $72/mWh but was increased due to sanctions against Chinese panel makers). The Market Price Referent (MPR) reflects the costs of building and operating a natural gas plant and is utilized as a benchmark for evaluating whether power projects are market rate. The current MPR for a 20 year contract is $89/mWh. At these prices, it is hard to see how such a PPA can be costing ratepayers significant amounts of money.

Additionally, the people have "spoken" that they are in favor of RPS requirements and want cleaner energy provided through this market-driven approach.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 5, 2012
Solar is already cheaper than coal. The thing is, we pay a very large price for the health and environmental damage caused by coal.

But we don't pay that cost with our utility bill so most of us aren't aware how expensive coal is. We pay with our tax dollars and health insurance premiums. Coal generated electricity probably costs around $0.18/kWh.

I expect to see solar cheaper than gas in the next few years. With Germany installing solar for $2/watt we know that ~ 8 cent per kWh solar is on its way to California. The LCOE for natural gas is now at 6 cents and the price of gas will be rising.
Jorge Alcauza
Jorge Alcauza
December 5, 2012
I guess a 2-3% increase per year as it's stated by CPUC is an acceptable increasing rate. If you compare this with the 70% increase rate in 10 years we have suffered in Spain (before renewables began to be significant in the mix) that's a "very good" increasing rate.
Although solar is more expensive than gas or coal, as more solar and other renewables are part of the global electric mix, the "classic" sources have to sell electricity at lower prices (at least this is what has happened here in the last five years) and this way, the higher prices of renewables are offset by lower prices (due to lower benefits for the companies) of gas, coal or nuclear.
Douglas Prince
Douglas Prince
December 5, 2012
Seems like its time for more people to go off-grid and say "Screw You!" to the utilities.
Daniel Ferra
Daniel Ferra
December 5, 2012
Petition Background
California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate, the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over-produces more than what is needed for his home.
The Feed-in Tariff can not be earned if you receive a rebate from your utility company for solar panels or if you are participating in other utility solar incentives programs such as the CSI. It also can not be earned if you are participating in net metering, which only pays one time a year under the AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act.
Our Feed-In Tariff should mirror Germany, Japan, and Hawaii where residential FIT is 21 cents - 54 cents per kilowatt hour.
The 5 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.
The California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax-paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed. Residential home owners should be allowed to oversize their Renewable Energy systems and participate in the State mandated goal to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
California resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in their electric bill, as shown by a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.
Go to Facebook, Daneil Ferra, Palm Springs Ca. to sign petition.
Daniel Ferra
Daniel Ferra
December 5, 2012
Hello, we need a National Feed in Tariff, for Solar and Wind, with laws that level the playing field, this petition starts with homeowners in California. Japan, Germany, and our state of Hawaii, will pay residents between 21- 54 cents per kilowatt hour, here in California they will pay us 5 cents per kilowatt hour, and they wont let us oversize our Solar systems, want to change our Feed in Tariff? Campaign to allow Californian residents to sell electricity obtained by renewable energy for a fair pro-business market price. Will you read, sign, and share this petition?

http://signon.org/sign/let-california-home-owners
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 4, 2012
I don't think it unreasonable to think installation rates in the US will reach current rates in Germany. Based on that I think it safe to predict a max of eight cents per kWh in the near future.

Can solar go lower than $2/watt installed? Some, perhaps. Utility owned PV might drop below eight cents.

But as the price continues to fall more and more solar is going to be installed at the end user level which will greatly bring down peak hour demand.

We've seen in Germany how a surprisingly small amount of solar on the grid can destroy midday peak prices, bringing them down to late night prices.

If we want to predict future Ca electricity prices we might take a close look at how peak hour purchases (gas peakers, etc.) drive up the average and simply take them out of the mix. Personally, I sort of expect the inflation adjusted cost of electricity in Ca to decrease over time.
Ucilia Wang
Ucilia Wang
December 4, 2012
Bob: Thanks for the comment. I think the many uncertainties about the future pricing for solar -- exactly how much lower will it get -- is what makes it hard to do a good rate impact analysis. By the way, I just spoke with DRA and was told that there was a typo in the press release. So the projected increases over 8 years are 5-9%.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
December 4, 2012
The average price for residential electricity in Ca is 17 cents per kWh. For all sectors it is 16 cents.

Gas peaker and openly purchased power to meet sunny-time high demand is expensive. Utilities are signing contracts for solar at ten cents.

Installed solar in Germany has hit the $2/watt. When those prices reach Ca they will result in seven to eight cent solar.

Wind continues to be the cheapest way to create new generation at five cents and falling. New geothermal, and Nevada is installing it, is eight cents.

There's a lot of spread between 4, 6, 10 cents and 16 to 17 cents. The projected "5-7 percent total by 2020" may not materialize with falling renewable prices. And I doubt people are going to notice a <1% increase in their utility bill. They may find that as they go about normal replacement of TVs and refrigerators their use will drop far more than 1% per year.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff writer covering the semiconductor industry at Red Herring. In addition to Renewable...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Kipp & Zonen
  • SolarReviews
  • EU PVSEC (European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition)
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • SolarEstimate.org
  • Reed Exhibitions
  • Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information