\nLos Angeles Business Council<\/a> released a hard-hitting
\nreport on the future of solar photovoltaics in southern California at its annual sustainability summit<\/a> on Tuesday. <\/p>\n
The blockbuster report<\/a> could have profound repercussions on In true Southern California fashion, the report was introduced to a glittering, The report, “Designing an Effective Feed-in Tariff for Greater Los Angeles<\/a>,” Authors J.R. DeShazo and Ryan Matulka at the Luskin Center for Innovation in In an ironic twist that was not lost on observers, California has not had an Some of the report’s key findings:<\/p>\n California’s share of worldwide solar PV is But that was just a warm-up for insightful critiques of several state and <\/p>\n UCLA on recent California feed-in tariff policy<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Similarly, AB 920, another of the “feed-in tariff” bills “will SB 32, the most recent of the state’s “feed-in tariff” bills, amended UCLA is quick to dismiss the California Public Utility Commission’s proposed <\/p>\n UCLA on federal tax credits<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The <\/p>\n UCLA on California’s RPS<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n “California’s Probably the report’s most far-reaching and certainly most controversial <\/p>\n UCLA on SMUD<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n UCLA’s <\/p>\n UCLA on LADWP<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n LADWP’s <\/p>\n UCLA concludes<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n “There “California’s existing and proposed FIT programs are not effective for ” … Other FIT programs have proven that tariffs must be cost-based and ” … cost-based tariffs are the only proven tariff structure to <\/p>\n The test<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The test now for UCLA and the L.A. Business If the Business Council fails, Los Angeles, and California too, will continue Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n St. Louis votes for better transit, despite Tea Party campaign<\/a><\/p>\n A lesson from California’s bad ballot measure<\/a><\/p>\n
\nrenewable energy policy not only in Los Angeles, but also in California. In
\nunusually clear and concise language, the report, written by the University of
\nCalifornia at Los Angeles (UCLA), cuts through the myths and misrepresentations
\nabout feed-in tariffs and squarely concludes that if Los Angeles, and by
\nextension California, want to meet their renewable energy targets, there’s no
\nchoice but to move to a system of multi-tiered feed-in tariffs. <\/p>\n
\nhigh-powered gathering at the hilltop Getty Museum<\/a> overlooking the Los Angeles basin and the
\ngleaming towers of downtown. The L.A. Business council’s event was a
\n“who’s who” of influential business, community, and political leaders
\nfrom across the region, including Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa<\/a>, gubernatorial candidate Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.<\/a>, and Mary Nichols, chair of
\nthe California Air Resources Board<\/a>. <\/p>\n
\ngores several sacred cows, such as the California Solar Initiative, the federal
\ninvestment tax credit, and a so-called feed-in tariff proposed by Los Angeles’
\nDepartment of Water and Power (LADWP). <\/p>\n
\nUCLA’s School of Public Affairs and the L.A. Business Council now find
\nthemselves in the maelstrom of volatile state and local politics in an election
\nyear. <\/p>\n
\neffective renewable energy policy since Jerry Brown left the Governor’s office
\nmore than two decades ago. <\/p>\n
\n continuing to decline.
\nDriven by aggressive feed-in tariff policies, other
\n jurisdictions around the world are increasing their use of solar energy,
\n developing their local economies, and capturing the world’s solar market
\n at a faster rate than California.
\n45 countries now have feed-in tariff policies.
\nIn California at the end of 2009 the installed cost
\n of solar PV varied widely from $4,630\/kWAC for large industrial
\n systems to $8,440\/kWAC for residential systems.
\nTax-based subsidies are a barrier to solar ownership
\n for public and non-profit agencies.
\nWithout federal and state subsidies, solar PV cannot
\n pay for itself even in sunny Southern California with current tariffs.<\/p>\n
\nnational policies that purport to support development of solar PV.<\/p>\n
\ntariffs in AB 1969, the first of many so-called “feed-in tariff”
\nbills that have passed in California, are based on the value of the
\nelectricity, not on the cost of generation, and, thus, are not high enough to
\nbe effective. Solar developers have not used the “feed-in tariff” as
\na result. <\/p>\n
\nnot fundamentally change the nature of net-metering incentives” in the
\nstate. <\/p>\n
\nthe determination of “value” by including environmental and
\ntransmission benefits. However, the UCLA report suggests that SB 32 will add
\nonly $0.02 to $0.04 per kilowatt-hour to the price. <\/p>\n
\nRenewable Auction Mechanism by noting that “in-basin solar is not likely
\nto win contracts under the RAM mechanism.”<\/p>\n
\ndisadvantage of federal tax credits is that owners “must owe taxes in
\norder to realize the benefits. Public agencies and non-profit entities cannot
\ndirectly receive this benefit. With the onset of the financial crisis, fewer
\ncommercial entities owed enough income taxes to monetize this credit.”<\/p>\n
\nstate RPS program has helped create opportunities for professional developers
\nto sell solar power to the utilities, but it has not significantly expanded the
\nopportunities for in-basin solar.” <\/p>\n
\nconclusion is that “California’s current policies … do not maximize the
\nopportunities for solar energy generation within the state and the Los Angeles
\nbasin.”<\/p>\n
\nreport summarizes the much ballyhooed Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s
\nso-called feed-in tariff by noting simply that SMUD’s “program is not
\nintended to support an industry, incentivize widespread adoption of solar, or
\ncreate access to the electricity supply markets.”<\/p>\n
\nproposed feed-in tariff program is intended to procure no more than 25 MW, an
\nembarrassingly paltry amount for a city the size of Los Angeles that bills
\nitself a leader in renewable energy. Worse, says UCLA, the LADWP’s tariffs will
\nnot even pay back a solar system’s initial cost. The tariffs must be increased
\nby a factor of two to four before they become attractive. In short, “this
\nproposal will not induce any additional in-basin solar for Los Angeles.”<\/p>\n
\nis a disconnection between Los Angeles’ aggressive solar goals and its
\npolicies. Although the region maintains some of North America’s most ambitious
\nrenewable energy and economic development goals, the current solar policy
\nframework does not facilitate any significant in-basin solar contribution to
\nthese goals … <\/p>\n
\ninducing extensive in-basin solar for Los Angeles. These programs lack a
\ncost-based tariff structure that facilitates participation from
\nnon-professional solar owners and owners of small projects. … Under the
\nnear-term market conditions, neither California nor Los Angeles will experience
\nwidespread solar participation with value-based tariffs … <\/p>\n
\ndifferentiated for solar participation. … <\/p>\n
\nincentivize solar energy. However, the increased costs of the solar technology
\nwill impact ratepayers more profoundly than other, less costly technologies.
\nConversely, the cost-based tariff structure may incentivize many small solar
\nprojects and create greater opportunities for local employment.”<\/p>\n
\nCouncil is to design a solar PV feed-in tariff program that not only will work
\nin practice but also will survive California’s contentious political
\nenvironment. It will be a measure of the Business Council’s political acumen as
\nwell as its muscle if it can move a program successfully through the fractious
\ncity council and get it implemented by a recalcitrant LADWP. <\/p>\n
\nto fall further behind other jurisdictions in renewable energy development and
\nthe job creation it entails.<\/p>\n