4. PROFESORADO
4.3. CALIDAD DEL PROFESORADO
Given the Renewable Energy Standards to go into effect in 2017, increased
pressure will be placed on private solar developers and utilities to “retire” their renewable energy certificates (RECs) in Vermont, rather than sell them to out of state utilities that need to meet their own state’s renewable energy portfolio standards. In addition, future solar siting incentive credits (e.g. for siting of arrays in landfills or parking lots) are likely to replace the “solar adder” policy that has been so popular over the past 5 years.
Thirdly, a project to put all Public Service Board documents and processing on-line (“e- PSB”) has been advocated for at least 5 years; recent changes at the PSB indicate “e- PSB” might actually see the light of day, which would be a welcome development for solar investors and other stakeholders in favor of transparency. This evolving policy environment suggest a number of research questions:
1. Does Vermont’s REC market function efficiently? Are REC prices set in a transparent manner, and should REC prices be set by a fixed tariff or the regional private market? Should RECs be applied to all kilowatt-hours of an array’s
production, or only the excess generation over customer usage? Does Vermont’s REC market stimulate additional private investment in renewable energy?
2. If grid fees are applied to solar net-metering customers, is that unduly
discriminatory, a barrier to customer participation, and unfairly dismissive of the benefits of distributed generation for all utility customers? Or are grid fees applied to net-metering customers a fair payment to utilities for use of their lines and helpful in avoiding increased costs imposed on all utility customers? 3. If e-PSB is, in fact, implemented, does it increase the transparency, speed, participation and overall satisfaction from all stakeholders in the permitting process? Does e-PSB increase the acceptance of the PSB’s decisions by
Vermont’s citizens, or do many Vermonters continue to feel disenfranchised by procedures? Do the costs of e-PSB justify its expected benefits over a 10-15 year timeframe? What is the differential impact of e-PSB, between government agencies involved in permitting review and approval on one hand, and private sector developers seeking permits on the other?
5.3 Concluding Remarks
The future of solar investment and development in Vermont is bright, largely because of the state’s progressive public policies in favor of in-state renewable energy development. Private solar investors can expect future profit margins to shrink but still remain sufficiently attractive compared to alternatives with similar low-risk profiles, so as to generate continued investment in solar installations at small, medium and large
scales. This will be driven in large part by private tax equity funds eager to take advantage of the renewed federal ITC and accelerated depreciation opportunities.
Tighter environmental and siting regulations are only likely to increase tension between solar developers and environmentalists who want to maintain Vermont’s natural beauty and open spaces. That tension could be reduced if more existing agricultural land was developed with “dual-use” solar installations, and if research shows that solar arrays do not result in significant negative impacts on certain environmental features, such as wetlands. In addition, developers could focus first on marginal agricultural land, as opposed to prime agricultural land. Ultimately, explicitly taking into consideration the climate change mitigation benefits of solar arrays and comparing them to potential
environmental losses can provide a means to assess the tradeoffs between solar electricity generation and environmental protection.
Based on the findings of this operational research project, individual solar investors can achieve returns comparable to those of a blended bond/stock investment portfolio, and do so in a way that results in net environmental benefits to society. But both the private and social benefits from solar investment remain dependent on the continuation of public subsidies, albeit at lower levels.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Susan, et al. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Vol. 2. Washington (DC): Ecological Society of America, 1997.
Alsema, Erik, Energy Payback Time and CO2 Emissions from Photovoltaic Systems, Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, Castener and Markvart (Eds), Elsevier, 2003.
Ayres and Kneese, Production, Consumption and Externalities, American Economic Review, 1969.
Banker, C., and Gale, S., Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells, Energy Bulletin, June 2006.
Carowicz, Seeing the Forests for the Trees and the Carbon: Mapping the World’s Forests in Three Dimensions, NASA, 2012.
Cost, Payback, and Incentives. (2011). Environmental Building News, 20(9), 13-14. Beach, R. T., McGuire, P. (2013). The Benefits and Costs of Solar Generation for Electric
Ratepayers in North Carolina. Crossborder Energy. Black, A. (2005). What's the Payback? Solar Today, 19(5), 26-26.
Black, A. (2007). YOU Can AFFORD Solar Power. (Cover story). Mother Earth News (221A), 39-42.
Black, A. (2008). Does it pay? Solar Today, 22(6), 28-28.
Blackburn, T., Magee, C., Rai, V. (2013). Solar Valuation and the Modern Utility's Expansion into Distributed Generation. The Electricity Journal.
Burns, J. E., & Kang, J.-S. (2012). Comparative economic analysis of supporting policies for residential solar PV in the United States: Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) potential. Energy Policy, 44, 217-225. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.045.
Carley, S., State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness, Energy Policy, Vo. 37, Issue 8, August 2009.
Chmura Economics and Analytics, A Benchmark Study of the Economic Impact of Visitor Expenditures on the Vermont Economy, 2011.
Chernova, Y. (2012). The Economics of Installing Solar. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition,
259(65), R6-R6.
CPUC, C. P. U. C. (2013). California Net Energy Metering Ratepayer Impacts Evaluation. Dale, M. and Benson, S., Energy Balance of the Global Photovoltaic (PV) Industry – is the PV
Industry a Net Electricity Producer? Environmental Science and Technology, 47 (7), 2013.
D'Amico, E. (2011). Deadline Looms for Renewable Energy Incentive Program. ENR:
Engineering News-Record, 267, 1-1.
Debenham, C. (2011). What the proposed cuts in the solar PV FiT mean for you. Poultry World, 4-4.
DeGrane, S. (2006). States offer incentives to expand solar power. American City & County,
121(2), 8-10.
Delmas, M. and Montes-Sancho, M., U.S. state policies for renewable energy: Context and effectiveness, Energy Policy, Vol. 39, Issue 5, May 2011.
DeSimone, P. (2005). Solar as a Sound Investment. Solar Today, 19(5), 24-27.
testimony before the US Senate Sub-Committee Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on May 20, 2007.
Durham, C., Colby, B., Longstreth, M. (1988). The Impact of State Tax Credits and Energy Prices on Adoption of Solar Energy Systems. Land Economics, 64(4).
Duthu, R., Zimmerle, D., Bradley, T., Callahan, M. (2014). Evaluation of Existing Customer- Owned On-Site Distributed Generation Business Models. The Electricity Journal. ELI. (2012). Valuing Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Delaware (M. J. Flight, R.
Paterson, K. Doiron & S. Polasky, Trans.) (Vol. 34, pp. 16-20): Environmental Law Institute.
Faulker, S., Barrow Jr, W., Keeland, B., Walls, S., & Telesco, D. (2011). Effects of conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological
Applications, 21(S3), S31-S48.
Feldman, D., Barbose, G., Margolis, R, Darghouth, N. (2013). Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent and Near-Term Projections. In N. R. E. Laboratory (Ed.): U.S. Department of Energy.
Fthenakis, V. (2012). PV energy ROI tracks efficiency gains. Solar Today, 26(4), 24-26. Gleason et al.,Potential of Restored Prairie Wetlands in the Glaciated North America Prairie to
Sequester Atmospheric Carbon, University of North Dakota, Energy and Environment Research Center, 2005.
Gowdy, J. and Erickson, J., The Approach of Ecological Economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29, 2005.
Hansen, L., Lacy, V., Glick, D. (2013). A Review of Solar PV Benefit and Cost Studies: Rocky Mountain Institute Electricity Innovation Lab.
ISO-NE, ISO New England 2015 Regional Electricity Outlook, January 2015.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, 2015.
Jenkins, W. A., Murray, B. C., Kramer, R. A., & Faulkner, S. P. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological
Economics, 69(5), 1051-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.022
Jenkins, W.A., Chojnacky, Heath and Birdsey, National-Scale Biomass Estimators for United States Tree Species, Forest Science, 49(1) 2003.
Keeton et al, Late-Successional Biomass Development in Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forests of the Northeastern United States, in Forest Science, 57(6), 2011.
Kremen, P., Managing Ecosystem Services: What do we need to know about their ecology?, Ecology Letters, 8, 2005.
Kwan, C. L. (2012). Influence of local environmental, social, economic and political variables on the spatial distribution of residential solar PV arrays across the United States. Energy
Policy, 47, 332-344. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.074
Lawrence, B., & Zedler, J. (2013). Carbon Storage by Carex stricta Tussocks: A Restorable Ecosystem Service? Wetlands, 33(3), 483-493. doi: 10.1007/s13157-013-0405-1. Likens et al. Effects of Forest Cutting and Herbicide Treatment on Nutrient Budgets in the
Hubbard Brook Watershed –Ecosystem, 1970.
Luck et al, Quantifying the Contribution of Organisms to the Provision of Ecosystem Services, BioScience, Vol.59 No.3, 2009.
Miller, E. (2003). Solar Delivers Strong Return on Investment. Solar Today, 17(5), 7A-7A. Morin and Woodhall, Vermont’s Forest Resources, 2011, US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service Northern Research Station, 2012.
National Academy of Sciences, Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making, 2005.
Norgaard, R., The Case for Methodological Pluralism, Ecological Economics, 1, 1989. Pagiola, S., Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica, Ecological Economics, 65,
2008.
Polo, A. L., & Haas, R. (2014). An international overview of promotion policies for grid- connected photovoltaic systems. Progress in Photovoltaics, 22(2), 248-273.
Reichelstein, S., & Yorston, M. (2013). The prospects for cost competitive solar PV power.
Energy Policy, 55, 117-127.
Sagoff, On the Value of Natural Ecosystems: The Catskills Parable, Politics and Life Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2002.
SAIC. (2013). Updated Solar PV Value Report: Prepared for Arizona Public Service Board. Sampson and Sedjo, Economics of Carbon Sequestration in Forestry: An Overview, Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 27, 1997.
Sarzynski, A., Larrieu, J., & Shrimali, G. (2012). The impact of state financial incentives on market deployment of solar technology. Energy Policy, 46, 550-557.
Sawhney, R., Thakur, K., Venkatesan, B., Shuguang, J., Upreti, G., & Sanseverino, J. (2014). Empirical analysis of the solar incentive policy for Tennessee solar value chain. Applied
Energy, 131, 368-376.
SEIA, Solar Energy Industry Association, http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry- data, downloaded January 15, 2016.
Sherwood, L. (2013). Explosive Growth: US Photovoltaic Installations. Solar
Today(July/August).
Shrimali, G., & Jenner, S. (2013). The impact of state policy on deployment and cost of solar photovoltaic technology in the U.S.: A sector-specific empirical analysis. Renewable
Energy: An International Journal, 60, 679-690.
Solangi, K. H., Islam, M. R., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Fayaz, H. (2011). A review on global solar energy policy. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 2149-2163. Stocks, C. (2013). Solar investment boosts environmental emphasis. Farmers Weekly, 159(35),
27-27.
Swift, K. D. (2013). A comparison of the cost and financial returns for solar photovoltaic
systems installed by businesses in different locations across the United States. Renewable
Energy: An International Journal, 57, 137-143.
Talavera, D. L., Nofuentes, G., & Aguilera, J. (2010). The internal rate of return of photovoltaic grid-connected systems: A comprehensive sensitivity analysis. Renewable Energy: An
International Journal, 35(1), 101-111.
Talavera, D. L., Nofuentes, G., Aguilera, J., & Fuentes, M. (2007). Tables for the estimation of the internal rate of return of photovoltaic grid-connected systems. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 447-466.
TIM, Thornburg Investment Management, “A Study of Real Real Returns”, 8/15/14
Timilsina, G. R., Kurdgelashvili, L., & Narbel, P. A. (2012). Solar energy: Markets, economics and policies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 449-465.
Vatn and Bromley, Choices without Prices without Apologies, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 1994.
on May 19, 2015).
USDA Forest Service, 2002 RPA data, http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Indicators in the United States, (www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html, downloaded May 19, 2015). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
(http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator , downloaded 12/2/15).
Verhoeven et al., Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 21(2), 2006
VT ANR, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, “Environmental and Land Use Impacts of Renewable Electric Generation in Vermont”, in response to Act 56 of 2015”, 2015. VT PSB, Vermont Public Service Board, Recent Orders,
http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/orders/recent, downloaded on January 15, 2016.
VT DPS, Vermont Department of Public Service, “Evaluation of Net Metering in Vermont, conducted pursuant to Act 125 of 2012”, January 2015.
Vermont Wetland Rules, Water Resources Board, 2002.
Woodhall, C., Russell, M., Walters, B., D’Amato, A., Zhu, K., Saatchi, S., Forest Production Dynamics along a Wood Density Spectrum in eastern US forests, Trees, Vol. 29, 2014. Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Vedlitz, A., Lacy, M. G., & Schelly, C. L. (2008). Greening Local
Energy: Explaining the Geographic Distribution of Household Solar Energy Use in the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 419-434.
Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). WETLAND RESOURCES: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 30(1), 39-74.
Appendix 1
A MANUAL FOR COMMUNITY-SCALE SOLAR DEVELOPMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction
Step One – Find Some Land
Step Two – Environmental Analysis Step Three- Engineering
Step Four – Stakeholder Engagement
Step Five – Application for a Certificate of Public Good Step Six – Building Your Solar Array
Step Seven – Securing Customers of Your Solar Net Metering Credits Step Eight – Administration, Operations and Maintenance
INTRODUCTION
This manual for solar development is designed to help someone interested in developing a solar installation for the first time. It is not a technical document, full of solar array engineering specifications, but rather a step-by-step guide for the layperson to follow. In other words, the solar developer can hire consultants to do the technical work.
While this Manual is intended to be used for mid-sized solar arrays (i.e. between 50-500 KW AC) installed in the ground, many of the steps are the same for smaller rooftop installations or much larger multi-megawatt arrays. That said, this Manual would not be appropriate for a large “utility-scale” solar array (e.g. 20 MW) that are seen in larger western states in the U.S.
This Manual is derived from personal experience developing a 66 KW AC solar array, which has led to developing approximately 15 additional solar arrays in the State of Vermont, ranging in size from 150 KW AC to 500 AC. It is offered with the hope that some other person will find it useful and decide to embark on their own journey of producing electricity from the sun.
Before getting into the detailed step-by-step process it may be useful to get the big picture of what you are doing. What is your “institutional universe” for getting a project developed and operational? What is a critical path and rough timeline to have in mind? For what they are worth, on the next pages are the institutional universe for my solar project, along with the sequence and timing of each major step.
For my project there were 36 different entities and individuals to work with, each one of them critical to the project’s success. From start to finish the project required 21 months of steady, part-time work.
Mont Vert Solar Project Critical Path and Timeline 2014 2015 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4
Land Purchases and Site Control
- Scout out Land for Sale Opportunities X
- Sign P/S Contract #1 for Land Purchase X
- Home Inspection X
- Initial Wetland Surveys X
- Closing on Property #1 X
- Sign P/S Contract #2 for Additional Land Purchase X
- Sub-Division of Property #1 and #2 X
- Wastewater Disposal Replacement Area Permits with VT
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) X
- Zoning Authority Approval from Proctor Town Authorities X
- Closing on Property #2 X
- Filing in Proctor Town Land Records final lot layouts X
Solar Array Design and Engineering
- Technical Assessment, Civil Engineering and Solar Array
Design X X
- Financial Appraisal and Mobilization of Financing X X
- Wetland Survey and Delineation X X
- Inter-Connection Discussions with GMP X X
- Certificate of Public Good - application and issuance X X - Landscape Architecture and Installation of Vegetative
Screening X X X
- Customer Acquisition/Discussions/Signing of Net Metering
Credit Agreements X X
- Solar Array Installation X
- Solar Array Energized and Inter-Connected into GMP grid X
STEP ONE – FIND SOME LAND
In a rural state such as Vermont, you would think this would be easy. It’s not. Land suitable for a solar array is actually hard to come by, and is arguably the biggest constraint to your solar project. Each parcel of land is different and solar arrays can be installed in a variety of ways, which offers the developer some flexibility, but there are some general guidelines to follow when looking for land.
Basic criteria for a good solar site are:
- south-facing, relatively flat (no more than 15-degree incline) - close to existing utility lines
- free of major environmental features, such as wetlands,
rare/endangered/threatened species, deer wintering areas, bat habitat, etc. - preferably cleared, although trees can be cut and stumped if this is the only
option
- free of Conservation Easements or other Right of Way Easements which would prevent the project from being built
- situated far enough away from neighbors and/or roads so as to avoid local opposition
How much land do you need? A rough guide is one acre per 100 kilowatt AC. A 50 KW AC array would require ½ acre and a 500 KW AC array would require 5 acres. This takes into account the extra land you need for fencing, access roads, setbacks from property boundaries and roads, etc.
The type of soil is also important. The easiest way to install a solar array is to drive posts 7’ into the ground, below the frost line. The racking is attached to the posts, and the solar panels attached to the posts. Soils with lots of rocks and/or ledge require different installation technologies, such as concrete ballasting (very large concrete blocks are placed on the ground and the posts are bolted into them) or rock anchoring. These technologies add considerably to your costs, and may make the land you are looking at unsuitable.
Proximity to existing utility lines is very important, because the solar developer pays the utility to inter-connect the array to those lines. Costs increase very quickly with distance (more about those specific costs later). Generally speaking, there are two types of utility lines, single phase and three-phase. A single-phase line can handle up to a 100 KW AC solar array, and sometimes up to a 150 KW AC array, depending on its
condition. (You have to consult with the electricity utility serving that area to have their engineers review the capacity of the specific line you want to tap into.) A three-phase line can handle much larger solar arrays, certainly up to 500 KW (a 5-acre array).
Green Mountain Power (GMP) has a very handy on-line mapping tool (http://www.greenmountainpower.com/innovative/solar_capital/3-phase-service-in- vermont/, downloaded 1/20/16), which allows the prospective solar developer to see if the 9-1-1 address where the land is located is close to a 3-phase line. For solar projects between 150-500 KW in size, land should be no more than 1250’ from the 3-phase line (and the shorter the better!). Otherwise, the inter-connection will be too expensive to justify the project.
Just because your land may be close enough to the utility lines to afford the inter- connection with the array does not mean the utility will let you “plug in”! Each
electricity line is part of a circuit that connects to a sub-station, and that sub-station has one or more transformers in it that can only handle so much electricity at one time. For example, the transformer at GMP’s Vergennes sub-station is rated at 14 MW AC, which means no more than 14 MW of renewable energy can be installed on the electricity lines feeding into that transformer. With the very rapid growth of solar installations (also called “distributed generation”, or DG), many of the utility’s sub-stations are at capacity.
This means you need to contact GMP’s Distributed Generation Coordinator, with the address of the land you want to develop for solar and the size of the array you want to build. GMP’s “Innovative Power” website has a lot of other useful resources you should consult, as well.
Every solar project larger than 15 KW AC in size must be reviewed by the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), to assess the project’s impact on sensitive environmental features, such as wetlands, flood zones or essential wildlife habitat. Fortunately, ANR offers a helpful on-line mapping tool, the Natural Resources Atlas (http://anr.vermont.gov/maps/nr-atlas, downloaded 1/20/16). This tool allows you to plug in an address and then select the environmental features you are concerned about to see if they show up on the land you are looking at. This is an important “first brush” to see if flood zones, wetlands, endangered species habitat or other protected environmental areas will make your land un-developable for solar.
But do not trust this tool! This is just a starting point. Very often ANR’s Natural