Florida Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Solar Amendment

Following a long local - and national - campaign, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a pro-solar ballot measure during the state’s primary election in August.

Passed with 73% of the vote, Amendment 4 implements a change to the state constitution and clears the way for the legislature to implement new tax laws that advocates say will end prohibitive tax liabilities and help boost Florida’s fledgling distributed solar market.

According to Vote Solar, a big proponent of the measure, Amendment 4 was placed on the ballot after garnering unanimous support from state policymakers in March. Specifically, the amendment authorizes the state legislature to abate ad valorem taxation and exempt tangible personal property tax on solar or renewable energy source devices installed on commercial and industrial property. This reflects an extension of the existing ad valorem abatement for solar and renewable energy devices on residential property. Once implemented by the legislature, the tax incentives of the amendment will begin in 2018 and extend for 20 years.

“The strong showing of support for Amendment 4 sends a clear message to elected officials at all levels of government that Florida voters want more diversity in our energy market. This amendment will spur growth in solar and renewable energy and create thousands of clean energy jobs for hardworking Floridians,” said State Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, sponsor of the solar development bill. “The success of this amendment would not have been possible without the hard work of the solar and renewable energy community, as well as our diverse coalition of support from bipartisan groups ranging across the political spectrum. I look forward to continuing the effort to promote commonsense, free-market energy reform measures like Amendment 4 in the Sunshine State.”

Scott Thomasson, director of new markets at Vote Solar, thanked the state lawmakers for their leadership. “It’s now up to legislators to act once again on behalf of their constituents, affirm Amendment 4 in law and let the solar industry know that Florida is open for business,” stated Thomasson. According to Vote Solar, Amendment 4 drew broad support from business groups, clean energy advocates and environmental organizations.

“The Sunshine State is finally living up to its name,” said Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs at the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). “This vote sends a strong signal that Florida is open for business and the well-paying jobs and economic benefits that solar provides. Amendment 4 removes financial barriers to smart local investment. It’s clear: Floridians want better access to affordable, clean energy options, and this vote is a significant step in the right direction.”

This win signals broad support for solar among Floridians; however, the solar industry is now shifting its efforts to block another Florida ballot measure, which SEIA’s Gallagher has deemed “anti-solar” and other industry stakeholders consider deceptive. Amendment 1, a utility-backed measure proposed by a group called Consumers for Smart Solar, will be on the November general election ballot.

The ballot summary says, “This amendment establishes a right under Florida’s constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.”

The Florida Supreme Court narrowly approved the amendment’s language in a 3-4 vote, and in her dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente referred to the ballot measure as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

“Let the pro-solar energy consumers beware. Masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative, this proposed constitutional amendment, supported by some of Florida’s major investor-owned electric utility companies, actually seeks to constitutionalize the status quo,” wrote Pariente.

She also took issue with the amendment’s undefined term “subsidize,” charging it “suggests that consumers who use solar energy necessarily impose a financial burden on non-solar consumers and implies that this undesirable consequence of the right to own or lease solar equipment must be remedied through the proposed amendment.”

With Amendment 4 passed, Gallagher said, “Now it’s time to keep the momentum going. To ensure a bright solar future for Florida, customers should vote NO on Amendment 1.”

 

PURPA Helps Bolster Utility-Scale Solar In N.C.

North Carolina surpassed states with more favorable solar resources to become the state with the second-highest amount of installed utility-scale solar PV capacity owned by independent power producers in 2015, behind only California, according to a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The EIA says the growth of utility-scale solar projects - which the agency defines as 1 MW or greater - has been encouraged in North Carolina by a decades-­old federal mandate, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and by state policies such as the renewable portfolio standard and the state renewable energy tax credit.

Currently, 1,173 MW, or 92%, of North Carolina’s 1,271 MW utility-scale PV capacity is certified to have qualifying facility (QF) small power producer status under PURPA - which is more than any other state in both absolute and percentage terms.

As the EIA explains, U.S. Congress passed PURPA in 1978 to promote alternative energy resources and energy efficiency, as well as to diversify the electric power industry. PURPA requires utilities to purchase power generated by QFs at the rate of the utility’s avoided cost. Avoided cost is the cost a utility would incur if it chose to either provide the energy itself (by building new capacity) or purchase the energy from nonqualifying facilities.

Although PURPA is a federal mandate, individual states were left to set specifics, such as the avoided-cost calculation and the minimum capacity threshold. For North Carolina, utilities are required to establish up to 15-year fixed avoided-cost contracts for eligible solar PV QFs with a contract capacity of up to 5 MW. The EIA says the availability of long-term contracts helps solar PV developers secure project financing.

North Carolina’s approach contrasts with the approaches of other states, such as Arizona or Nevada, where the utilities offer contracts with shorter contract terms or with lower capacity thresholds, according to the agency. Furthermore, the recent build-out of PV in North Carolina indicates that the avoided-cost rates in that state, in addition to state and federal incentives, are attractive to PV developers.

The EIA says renewable electric generation capacity by independent power producers grew for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, largely as a result of California’s implementation of PURPA. PURPA’s influence decreased in the 1990s when fuel prices declined, which lessened the competitiveness of renewable energy compared with other fuel sources. Around the same time, many states revised their PURPA rules, which reduced the required avoided-cost rate and contract length.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed states with competitive electricity markets to opt out of PURPA, lessening PURPA’s impact in states participating in regional transmission organizations (RTOs), but keeping PURPA relevant in areas such as the Southeast and Northwest that do not have RTOs. Although PURPA implementation in states such as Arizona and Nevada is not as favorable to PV as it is in North Carolina, the EIA says these states have (or have had) other state-level programs that, when combined with their favorable solar resources, have encouraged significant utility-scale solar PV development.

 

Massachusetts Law Bodes Well For Energy Storage

Gov. Charlie Baker, R-Mass., recently signed into law a bill meant to further diversify Massachusetts’ power mix with clean energy resources. Although it focuses mainly on large procurements of offshore wind and hydropower, the legislation also includes a significant provision authorizing an energy storage procurement goal.

“Massachusetts is always at the forefront of adopting innovative clean energy solutions, and this legislation will allow us to build on that legacy and embrace increased amounts of renewable energy, including hydropower,” said Baker in a press release. “With our partners in the legislature, the commonwealth has taken another major step toward providing residents and businesses with a cost-effective and reliable clean energy future.”

According to the bill’s language, the legislation directs the Department of Energy Resources to determine “whether to set appropriate targets for electric companies to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems to be achieved by Jan. 1, 2020.” The department has until the end of this year to make its determination, and if it does find such targets prudent, the department will have to adopt them by July 2017.

In its press release, the governor’s office noted that this builds on the Baker-Polito administration’s previously announced $10 million Energy Storage Initiative to study opportunities for supporting the state’s energy storage market.

“Energy storage technology has the potential to be a game-changer for the Massachusetts energy market, further cementing our place as a national clean energy leader,” commented Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Judith Judson in the release. “By pairing renewable energy resources with energy storage technology, this legislation will allow the commonwealth to lower energy costs for ratepayers, shave our peak demand energy usage and reduce our state’s carbon emissions.”

According to the release, the legislation also provides additional support for the Massachusetts’ business community by establishing a commercial property-assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The PACE program, facilitated by MassDevelopment and the Department of Energy Resources, will enable commercial and industrial property owners across the state to finance energy-efficiency and renewable energy upgrades that are repaid through a property tax assessment on their buildings.

 

Solar Advocates Claim Victory In New Mexico

Customers of New Mexico utility Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS) will not have to worry about paying higher fees for producing their own solar energy; in fact, most solar customers will even see reductions in their total surcharge fees, according to nonprofit advocacy groups Earthjustice and Vote Solar.

The two groups, in partnership with New Mexico attorney Jason Marks, fought SPS’ proposal to increase a special charge on customers who produce renewable energy on their property.

Under a settlement agreement approved by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, SPS’ solar surcharge (technically known as “Rate No. 59, Distributed Generation Standby Service Rider”) will not increase and will drop for many, according to the nonprofits.

SPS first imposed the special charge in 2011, and in October 2015, the utility proposed increasing it by 31% for residential customers and up to 48% for other groups of customers.

The settlement maintains the current rate charged for producing renewable energy on a home, small business, municipal building or school. For agricultural irrigation customers with renewable energy systems, the surcharge will drop by 20%. In addition, the surcharge will no longer apply to energy production that exceeds customers’ energy consumption that month.

The groups note that the rate hike would have threatened the growth of distributed solar and other clean energy resources in southeastern New Mexico.

In 2015, the state’s two other investor-owned utilities also sought to impose new fees for customers with rooftop solar systems. However, Earthjustice, Vote Solar and other advocates intervened in both proceedings - resulting in one withdrawn and one defeated in the commission’s legal proceedings.

Rick Gilliam, Vote Solar’s program director, said the group applauds the commission for its decision, “which will prevent SPS from further penalizing solar customers for generating their own electricity - an investment that lowers energy costs, supports local jobs and improves health for families statewide. This should send a clear signal to utilities around the country that are attempting to impose similar discriminatory fees that this tactic to curtail rooftop solar is as unconstructive as it is unfair.”