Massachusetts has surpassed its goal of being home to 250 megawatts of installed solar energy capacity four years early. Governor Deval Patrick's administration and the state legislature have adopted a series of policies favoring the development of solar energy, including a target of reaching 250 MW by 2017. Last week the administration announced that this goal had already been reached, and established a new goal of 1,600 MW by 2020.
Solar power in Massachusetts has grown significantly in recent years. In 2007, the Commonwealth hosted just 3 MW of solar capacity. Since then, Massachusetts has adopted a variety of incentives for renewable power production.
Chief among these is the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Solar Carve-Out program. State law currently requires utilities to source up to 400 MW from in-state solar photovoltaic projects. Utilities purchase solar renewable energy certificates, or SRECs, representing the environmental attributes of electricity produced by qualified projects. These SRECs come in addition to the actual power produced by projects, and carry a premium value over other renewable attribute products. State laws such as the 2008 Green Communities Act have provided additional incentives, including technical assistance and financial support for solar development.
Given current policies and market dynamics, solar power in Massachusetts will likely continue to grow. While the bulk of newly installed capacity is likely to be in the form of distributed generation (as opposed to very large-scale utility installations as are under development in the desert Southwest), Massachusetts will continue to see projects ranging from residential rooftop-scale to close to 10 MW. Reaching 1,600 MW within the next seven years will be a challenge, and may depend on continued policy support and market trends, but the recent rate of growth and relative enthusiasm suggest this may be possible.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label Green Communities Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Communities Act. Show all posts
Massachusetts increases renewable energy incentives
Monday, August 13, 2012
Energy legislation signed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick earlier this month creates new opportunities for renewable energy projects in New England.
Finally enacted as Senate Bill 2395, the bill titled "An Act relative to competitively priced electricity in the Commonwealth" (37-page PDF) represents a combination of legislative proposals offered during the 2012 session. The Act expands opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency, while seeking to manage increases in the cost of energy to consumers.
A number of the Act's provisions improve opportunities for renewable electricity production in Massachusetts and other New England states. Building on the Green Communities Act of 2008, the new law increases the amount of electricity that electric distribution companies may purchase from renewable generating facilities under long-term contracts. Previous law had required utilities to procure up to 3% of their electricity through long-term power purchase agreements with independent renewable energy developers.
The 2012 act amends the Green Communities Act by requiring distribution companies to solicit 10 to 20-year power purchase agreements from renewable developers for up to an additional 4% of the utilities' annual load. By the end of 2016, the Commonwealth's distribution companies will conduct two rounds of joint solicitations for the new contracts. Unlike previous renewable PPA negotiations such as led utility National Grid to select offshore wind developer Cape Wind as a renewable energy supplier, the new contracts must be negotiated through a competitive bid process.
The new law also provides a boon for distributed generation, requiring 10% of the newly-mandated supply to come from newly developed, small, emerging or diverse renewable energy distributed generation facilities located in its service territory. Standards for these distributed generation projects require a maximum project capacity no greater than 6 megawatts. Eligible distributed generation projcts cannot be net metering facilities, and must rely on a technology with no more than 30 megawatts of installed capacity in Massachusetts as of April 2012.
Under the Massachusetts renewable portfolio standard, projects eligible for this incentive may be built in any New England state, New York, or eastern Canada.
Finally enacted as Senate Bill 2395, the bill titled "An Act relative to competitively priced electricity in the Commonwealth" (37-page PDF) represents a combination of legislative proposals offered during the 2012 session. The Act expands opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency, while seeking to manage increases in the cost of energy to consumers.
A number of the Act's provisions improve opportunities for renewable electricity production in Massachusetts and other New England states. Building on the Green Communities Act of 2008, the new law increases the amount of electricity that electric distribution companies may purchase from renewable generating facilities under long-term contracts. Previous law had required utilities to procure up to 3% of their electricity through long-term power purchase agreements with independent renewable energy developers.
The 2012 act amends the Green Communities Act by requiring distribution companies to solicit 10 to 20-year power purchase agreements from renewable developers for up to an additional 4% of the utilities' annual load. By the end of 2016, the Commonwealth's distribution companies will conduct two rounds of joint solicitations for the new contracts. Unlike previous renewable PPA negotiations such as led utility National Grid to select offshore wind developer Cape Wind as a renewable energy supplier, the new contracts must be negotiated through a competitive bid process.
The new law also provides a boon for distributed generation, requiring 10% of the newly-mandated supply to come from newly developed, small, emerging or diverse renewable energy distributed generation facilities located in its service territory. Standards for these distributed generation projects require a maximum project capacity no greater than 6 megawatts. Eligible distributed generation projcts cannot be net metering facilities, and must rely on a technology with no more than 30 megawatts of installed capacity in Massachusetts as of April 2012.
Under the Massachusetts renewable portfolio standard, projects eligible for this incentive may be built in any New England state, New York, or eastern Canada.
May 28, 2010 - National Grid unveils 1 MW rooftop solar in MA
Friday, May 28, 2010
National Grid now operates the largest solar site in Massachusetts, having completed its 1 MW solar generation facility in Whitinsville. Conveniently, National Grid already owned a suitable location: the flat roof of its own New England Distribution Center warehouse.
The development was made possible in part by the 2008 Massachusetts Green Communities Act, which allows utilities to own up to 50 megawatts of solar generation. The National Grid project is the first utility-owned solar project under this new law. National Grid plans several more projects in the coming year, totaling about 5 MW. The cost? Less than $6.5 million, says National Grid; the utility projects that the Whitinsville project will cost an average residential Massachusetts customer approximately one cent per month over the 20-year life of the project.
How about economic development through renewable power? The utility says the project created more than 50 green jobs in Massachusetts. For example, the solar panels themselves were manufactured by Evergreen Solar of Marlborough, and other local vendors and contractors were used where possible.
The development was made possible in part by the 2008 Massachusetts Green Communities Act, which allows utilities to own up to 50 megawatts of solar generation. The National Grid project is the first utility-owned solar project under this new law. National Grid plans several more projects in the coming year, totaling about 5 MW. The cost? Less than $6.5 million, says National Grid; the utility projects that the Whitinsville project will cost an average residential Massachusetts customer approximately one cent per month over the 20-year life of the project.
How about economic development through renewable power? The utility says the project created more than 50 green jobs in Massachusetts. For example, the solar panels themselves were manufactured by Evergreen Solar of Marlborough, and other local vendors and contractors were used where possible.
May 27, 2010 - TransCanada sues Massachusetts over local aspect of renewable portfolio standard
Thursday, May 27, 2010
In Massachusetts: TransCanada has sued the Commonwealth (and named officials) over the Green Communities Act. Specifically, TransCanada is asserting that the statute's requirement that utilities enter into long-term contracts to buy power from Massachusetts generators including local solar PV projects is unconstitutional. TransCanada claims that this discrimination against out-of-state renewable energy producers not only violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, but results in higher prices to ratepayers. The New England Power Generators Association agrees that it is illogical to insist that clean energy originate locally, given our regional transmission grid and unpredictable electron flows.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to negotiate a settlement with TransCanada.
Interestingly, TransCanada is challenging the Green Communities Act: the same statutory framework into which the Cape Wind contract with National Grid fits.
Are electrons a fungible commodity? Are the electrons produced by a renewable project inherently more valuable than electrons produced by (for example) coal-fired generation? Even if they are, doesn't the great mixing bowl that is the transmission grid eliminate any uniqueness those renewable electrons had? Is there any real meaning to the kind of financial (contractual) fictions that Consumer A is buying Generator B's renewable electrons?
Weather news: NOAA predicts an "active" to "extremely active" hurricane season this year, with between 14 and 23 named storms forming in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.
BP's top kill of the Deepwater Horizon oil well appears to have worked.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to negotiate a settlement with TransCanada.
Interestingly, TransCanada is challenging the Green Communities Act: the same statutory framework into which the Cape Wind contract with National Grid fits.
Are electrons a fungible commodity? Are the electrons produced by a renewable project inherently more valuable than electrons produced by (for example) coal-fired generation? Even if they are, doesn't the great mixing bowl that is the transmission grid eliminate any uniqueness those renewable electrons had? Is there any real meaning to the kind of financial (contractual) fictions that Consumer A is buying Generator B's renewable electrons?
Weather news: NOAA predicts an "active" to "extremely active" hurricane season this year, with between 14 and 23 named storms forming in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.
BP's top kill of the Deepwater Horizon oil well appears to have worked.
May 17, 2010 - Cape Wind inks another contract
Monday, May 17, 2010
The next chapter in the continuing story of Cape Wind: a mirror contract, and questions about the linkage between renewable portfolio standards and power pricing.
National Grid has signed a second contract with Cape Wind, this time to enable National Grid to assign the remaining 50% of the project's output to another wholesale customer -- a "mirror contract" for National Grid's primary $3 billion, 15-year contract to buy 50 percent of the electricity that will be produced by Cape Wind. This would leave National Grid with rights to the entire output of the Cape Wind project.
Mirror contracts are relatively common in the industry. As a financing tool, them allow the project developer to demonstrate to banks and capital sources that they have a guaranteed offtake for 100% of the project's production. This makes banks more willing to finance the project.
So who did National Grid have in mind as the other wholesale purchaser? If you know the regional market, Boston-based utility NStar jumps out as one potential purchaser, although there are of course other possibilities. In fact, National Grid itself apparently has the rights under the mirror contract to retain 100% of the power for itself -- although doing so magnifies its ratepayers' exposure to the elevated costs, triggering a tough burden on National Grid to demonstrate that this is just and reasonable and in the public interest.
Some commenters are noting that the Cape Wind was made possible by the Commonwealth's Green Communities Act and related legislation establishing a renewable portfolio standard (or renewable electricity standard) for the largest investor-owned utilities. But clearly there's a huge price premium figured in over the existing mix of resources -- about 8 cents for power today, versus 20.7 cents and rising for the Cape Wind output. Is a renewable portfolio standard enough to explain the acceptability of this significant price increase? Other states like Maine have had renewable portfolio standards for years, and although some renewables might be priced higher, there has been enough qualified capacity coming online at near-market costs that Maine has not seen much activity from significantly above-market contracts.
National Grid has signed a second contract with Cape Wind, this time to enable National Grid to assign the remaining 50% of the project's output to another wholesale customer -- a "mirror contract" for National Grid's primary $3 billion, 15-year contract to buy 50 percent of the electricity that will be produced by Cape Wind. This would leave National Grid with rights to the entire output of the Cape Wind project.
Mirror contracts are relatively common in the industry. As a financing tool, them allow the project developer to demonstrate to banks and capital sources that they have a guaranteed offtake for 100% of the project's production. This makes banks more willing to finance the project.
So who did National Grid have in mind as the other wholesale purchaser? If you know the regional market, Boston-based utility NStar jumps out as one potential purchaser, although there are of course other possibilities. In fact, National Grid itself apparently has the rights under the mirror contract to retain 100% of the power for itself -- although doing so magnifies its ratepayers' exposure to the elevated costs, triggering a tough burden on National Grid to demonstrate that this is just and reasonable and in the public interest.
Some commenters are noting that the Cape Wind was made possible by the Commonwealth's Green Communities Act and related legislation establishing a renewable portfolio standard (or renewable electricity standard) for the largest investor-owned utilities. But clearly there's a huge price premium figured in over the existing mix of resources -- about 8 cents for power today, versus 20.7 cents and rising for the Cape Wind output. Is a renewable portfolio standard enough to explain the acceptability of this significant price increase? Other states like Maine have had renewable portfolio standards for years, and although some renewables might be priced higher, there has been enough qualified capacity coming online at near-market costs that Maine has not seen much activity from significantly above-market contracts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
