Designing Feed-in Tariff Policies to Scale Clean Distributed Generation in the U.S.

Electricity Journal

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 52-58

  Bull, Pierre ^a   Long, Noah ^b   Steger, Cai ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIFORNIA; CASE-STUDIES; CLEAN ENERGY; ELECTRIC DELIVERY SYSTEMS; FEED-IN TARIFF; NEW YORK; POLICY FRAMEWORK; TARIFF POLICY;

DISTRIBUTED POWER GENERATION;

EID: 79953776782     PISSN: 10406190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tej.2011.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Paying for Renewable Energy: TLC at the Right Price, DB Climate Advisors, Dec. 2009; FITs Adjust While Delivering Scale in 2010, DB Climate Advisors, July 2010; Renewables 2010: Global Status Report, REN21, Sept. 2010; Toby Couture and Karylnn Cory, State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the
2. United States, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, June 2009.
3. Id; European PV Policy Update: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, June 15, 2010.
4. Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun, N.Y. Times, Mar. 8, 2010.
5. Tara Patel, EDF's Solar "Time Bomb" Will Tick On After France Pops Bubble, Bloomberg News, Jan. 19, 2011.
6. Renewables 2010, supra note 1.
7. IEAPVPS 2009, Annual Report at http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/dam/public/report/annual/ar_2009.pdf.
8. James Rose, Freeing the Grid 2010: Best Practices in State Net Metering Policies and Interconnection Procedures, Network for New Energy Choices, Dec. 2010; Fred Beck, Renewable Energy Policy Project, and Eric Martinot, Global Environment Facility, Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers, 2004; H. Rhoads-Weaver, eFormative Options LLC, and T. Forsyth, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overcoming Technical and Market Barriers for Distributed Wind Applications: Reaching the Mainstream, July 2006; Lloyd Cibulka, Distributed Generation Advances Against Industry Barriers, Power Grid International, at http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/73569/articles/electric-light-power/volume-78/issue-3/features/industry-report/distributed-generation-advances-against-industry-barriers.html
9. Lionel Bony, et al., Achieving Low-Cost Solar PV: Industry Workshop Recommendations for Near-Term Balance of System Cost Reductions, Rocky Mountain Institute, Sept. 2010; and The Impact of Local Permitting on the Cost of Solar Power, SunRun, Jan. 2011.
10. A recent study by Itron, LLC, and KEMA Consulting, LLC, documenting the impact of the California solar initiative found that:Depending on the dispatch adjustment method used in the modeling, the 2009 Transmission Capacity Benefit (TCB) on a statewide level is estimated to range between 500-900MW. This is comparable to the delivery capability of a modern 230kV transmission line. Between 2008 and 2009 there was a 240 percent increase in both the statewide TCB and transmission loss savings (calculated at peak system load).In the future when CSI penetration reaches twice the 2009 level, the modeling yields a projected 1,000-1,600MW statewide TCB, which is comparable to the delivery capability of a 500kV transmission line. Furthermore, the analysis shows that when the CSI full capacity target (1,750MW) is reached, the statewide TCB could grow to 4,000MW or more. However, it is important to note that these capacity benefits are distributed statewide, rather than on any one 230kV or 500kV corridor. Thus, the incremental benefits on each individual transmission corridor within the state of California represent only a small percentage of the aggregate TCB.Available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1F929221-46B3-4F29-A07E 52C7DD42FA37/0/2009_CSI_Impact_Exec_Summary.pdf.
11. For one calculation method, see Contreras et al., Photovoltaics Value Analysis, NREL/Navigant, 2008, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/42303.pdf.
12. A determination of federal preemption should be carefully considered alongside FIT policy development. For more in-depth legal analysis on preemption, refer to the report by S. Hempling et al., Renewable Energy Prices in State-Level Feed-in Tariffs: Federal Law Constraints and Possible Solutions, NREL/TP-6A2-47408, 2010.
13. The New York Solar Industry Development and Jobs Act (NYSIDJA) of 2011 includes many of these same provisions that were included in the NYSIDJA 2010 bill. Advocates expect bill introduction of NYSIDJA 2011 bill in the New York State legislature later in the session (Mar.-May timeframe). Updates on the progress of the bill can be found at: http://www.nrdc.org/newyork/campaign-climate-energy.asp.
14. Richard W. Caperton and Bracken Hendricks, Center for American Progress, John Lauer, Groundswell, and Courtney Hight, Energy Action Coalition, CLEAN Contracts: Making Clean Local Energy Accessible Now, Jan. 2011; Paying for Renewable Energy: TLC at the Right Price, supra note 1.
15. For details on the CPUC Rulemaking 08-08-009, Decision Adopting the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM), see http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/128432.htm.
16. Freeing the Grid 2010: Best Practices in State Net Metering Policies and Interconnection Procedures, NNEC; and Achieving Low-Cost Solar PV, Rocky Mountain Institute.
17. Impact of Local Permitting, supra note 7.