301 Moved Permanently

---

nginx

Solar Grid Parity Likely With EPA Carbon Rules

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) sweeping proposal to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants under Section 111 (d) under the Clean Air Act will invariably mean less coal, which should open up a big opportunity for renewable energy, particularly solar and wind power.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan seeks to cut carbon emissions from the power sector by 30% below 2005 levels, likely raising electricity rates. Just the same, this would bring wind and solar generation closer to grid parity - an opportunity not lost on wind and solar developers.

“We know from firsthand experience that building more wind and solar power facilities [has] proven to be the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to replace dirty power plants and combat climate change,” says Paul Gaynor, CEO of Boston-based wind and solar developer First Wind. “We hope that these new EPA rules underscore that we have a chance right now to make long-term decisions to lock in affordable power with clean, renewable energy for decades to come.”

There’s little doubt that EPA emissions guidelines will positively impact overall solar demand and push solar closer to combustion-fuel electricity prices, says Dan Bedell, executive vice president of strategic and corporate development at Principal Solar Inc., Texas-based owner-operator of solar generation assets. The question is how rapidly this will happen.

“Some states and utilities will immediately move to reduce or offset power plant pollution with renewable sources,” Bedell says, adding that the more innovative, change-embracing entities - such as Duke and NRG Energy - are wisely planning and already acting to incorporate the inevitable transformation that is well under way toward distributed, clean energy generation, whether it’s solar or wind.

“Those with more to lose or those with less agility and less foresight will instead turn to the courts for protection or, at least, delay,” he says. “Unfortunately, the ratepayers in those territories will wind up bearing the most financial burden because they’ll have to pay for new generation sources in addition to litigation expenses.”

Under the current proposals - which must undergo months of public comment and are thus subject to change - states are supposed to begin submitting their carbon reduction plans just as the investment tax credit for solar projects heads into the sunset at the end of 2016.

According to the EPA, its Clean Power Plan will be implemented through a state-federal partnership under which states will identify a path forward using either current or new electricity production and pollution control policies. As opposed to shutting down the power plants immediately, the EPA plan allows states to tailor a method to comply over a specified period of time. States can choose a mix of energy efficiency, demand-side management and state/regional policies to meet the program’s goals.

Tom Wood, a partner at Stoel Rives LLP, points out that the states have a tremendous range of options for responding to the plan.

“The program is based on four strategies: improved power plant operation, increased use of lower-emitting generation resources, increased use of non-emitting generation resources and increased end-user efficiency,” Wood says. “States must submit CO2 reduction plans to the EPA that make use of the four strategies. These plans can be single state or multistate.”

States are required to reduce CO2 emissions from power generation on either a mass basis or an output (lb/MWh) basis. The reductions occur in two stages, with the first limit to be reached by 2020 and the second by 2030. States preparing single state plans can get an extension to June 2017; states submitting multistate plans can get an extension to June 2018.

State-specific, emission rate-based limits are given in the rule. For example, by 2020, Idaho must decrease CO2 emissions from its affected facilities to 244 lbs/MWh while Montana must reduce its CO2 emissions from covered units to 1,882 lbs/MWh. The EPA’s interactive map showing each state’s obligations under the proposed Clean Power Plan reveals some of the considerations behind the seemingly byzantine arrangement. Legal challenges and political wrangling will hang on the formulas by which given states were assigned their contributions to the national carbon reduction goal.

“It is not too bold a statement to say that the rule is going to be litigated once it is finalized,” says Steve Fine, vice president of ICF International, a Virginia-based consulting firm. “You have always had competing visions of how the EPA should interpret a best system of emissions reduction (BSER) standard. It’s the classic ‘inside the fence’ versus the ‘beyond the fence’ issue.”

For each state, the EPA used 2012 generation data to calculate an average fossil emission rate that served as the starting point and then made adjustments downward on a state-by-state basis to end up with a BSER standard. Fine says in developing its emissions rules, the EPA started with inside-the-fence improved efficiency requirements for coal-fired plants and then moved outside the fence to encompass combined-cycle plant operations, renewable energy and energy efficiency, among other factors.

Interestingly, the EPA has declined to suggest a model rule to go along with the BSER.

“The EPA has said to the states, ‘You have lots of flexibility, and we’re not even going to suggest a model rule,’” Fine says. “They are very much enabling an organic, bottom-up approach. But it raises large questions about what individual states will do.”

While the notion of ratcheting up emission standards at U.S. power plants is not new - nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states comprise the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the U.S.’ first market-based regulatory program to reduce carbon dioxide - critics contend that such a mandate to limit carbon reductions is complex and arbitrary.

“Some have suggested that the 30 percent target is more reasonable than anticipated,” says Scot Segal, executive director at the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies working on clean air issues. “But the truth is that the most cost-effective reductions since 2005 - perhaps the first 10 percent - have already been undertaken. What is left on the road to 2030 are increasingly more expensive and less-tested alternatives.”

Segal also cautions that if the economy grows, so, too, will energy demand, “which will complicate the glide path the EPA anticipates.”

Just the same, RGGI maintains that the program is working. According to an RGGI spokesperson, the program has helped participating states reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 40% since 2005, in conjunction with market responses and other state clean energy polices. RGGI says the program is based on emission allowances that are distributed, providing certainty that the projected emission reductions will be achieved, including reductions attributable to energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as wind and solar.

The EPA plan will also likely have a profound effect for the 29 states plus the District of Columbia that feature a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), says Stoel Rives’ Wood. He says the EPA plan will likely stimulate “regulatory and market-based actions” to acquire additional wind and solar generation. Conversely, Wood says non-RPS states have already indicated that they consider any “outside the fence” options to be illegal and subject to extensive legal and legislative challenges.

- Mark Del Franco & Michael Puttré

 

U.S.-China PV Trade
War Escalates

As expected, the U.S. Department of Commerce has made a preliminary finding that certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People’s Republic of China are being dumped on the U.S. market and thus are subject to countervailing duties.

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce has calculated a preliminary subsidy rate of 18.56% for Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd. Suntech Power Co. Ltd. and five of its affiliates received a preliminary subsidy rate of 35.21%. All other producers/exporters in China have been assigned a preliminary subsidy rate of 26.89%.

As a result of the preliminary finding, U.S. importers of products from the aforementioned companies will have to pay cash deposits based on these rates.

Importantly, the preliminary finding applies to PV modules assembled in third-party countries from components manufactured in China. Previous tariffs had enabled Chinese PV firms to use offshore assembly as a loophole, and it is this policy that SolarWorld has successfully sought to close with its latest petition.

The preliminary determinations in the related anti-dumping investigations on PV products from China and Taiwan are scheduled for July 24. There is some cause for optimism that PV products manufactured and assembled in Taiwan not involving components from the People’s Republic may be off the hook.

“What is not clear is whether Chinese solar panels and modules with solar cells that are totally produced in Taiwan or solar cells that are produced in third countries are out of the case,” says William Perry, an international trade law partner at Dorsey & Whitney in Seattle. “Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire to all the companies in the China case asking them whether the solar cells are partially produced in China. The implication is that those Chinese modules and panels with solar cells totally produced in Taiwan may be out of the case.” S