Author Archives: Frank Andorka

Arizona Rejects Tucson Electric Power’s Grid Access Fee For Solar Customers

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

It’s not often that I get to write something positive about the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). For those of you who have followed my work over the years, we’ve had a…contentious relationships at best. Typically, I’m writing about something I view as skullduggery, and the commissoners (particularly on Twitter) have felt compelled to take on a writer from a little-known solar trade publication.

But today is not one of those days. Today, I’m taking my hat off to the ACC for rejecting a grid access charge proposed in 2015 by Tucson Electric Power (TEP) that would have penalized Arizona residents for installing solar energy.

It was another attempt to persuade the ACC that the “cost shift” is a thing, whereby non-solar customers are somehow damaged by solar customers because (say it with me now) “solar customers don’t pay their fair share of grid upkeep.”

Which, as we’ve discussed before, is nonsense. National studies have concluded that the cost shift only happens when 10% of all electricity in a state is generated by solar power, and that is currently only true in five states. And even IN those five states, the cost shift turns out to be fractions of a penny on the dollar.

[wds id=”3″]

(If I seem a little testy, it’s because I have spent the better part of the last three years battling what I refer to as “the zombie lie” of the cost shift, and it wears on a fellow having to write a similar story for several different states because state stakeholders don’t seem to get that the cost shift is a complete myth.

But in any case…kudos to the ACC for seeing through the argument and rejecting the Grid Access Charge. With its ally Earthjustice, Vote Solar has been fighting this Grid Access Charge since 2015. In their release celebrating the decision, Briana Kobor, regulatory director at Vote Solar, had this to say:

Arizona’s families and businesses should be able to meet their own energy needs with the state’s plentiful sunshine if they so choose. Solar is an investment that supports local jobs, improves energy security and helps build a competitive new energy economy in the state. We commend the decision to avoid further penalizing solar customers with additional fees.

Since TEP was trying to bolster the cost-shift myth and make it uneconomical for people to install rooftop solar, I personally am taking the win. Congratulations to Vote Solar and Earthjustice for the win – and use tonight to celebrate. Then get back to the grindstone tomorrow. That cost-shift myth won’t bust itself.

California Governor Must Sign SB 700 To Make SB 100 A Reality

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Something magical happened in California yesterday. Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 100, which takes the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to 100% by 2045.

Imagine that. The world’s fifth-largest economy is now on its way to getting 100% of its electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources within the next 30 years. If you had suggested such a thing even seven years ago, when I first joined the solar industry, people would have called you insane (or worse).

But now that it’s done, it’s time to complete the circle and get the governor’s signature on SB 700, the companion bill to SB 100 that extends the incentive program for energy storage.

[wds id=”3″]

Governor Brown himself appears to recognize that the two bills are inextricably intertwined, saying at yesterday’s signing ceremony that the 100% by 2045 goal couldn’t be reached without a significant increase in storage.

“To get to 100% clean energy in a manner that ensures reliability and reduces cost, we must use a variety of strategies,” Brown said in his signing statement. “Energy storage, increased efficiency and adjusting energy use to the time of day when we have the most power will all help with the transition.”

So what’s staying your hand, governor? Get on this and sign SB 700 already.

When SB 700 passed a couple of weeks ago, Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, said this:

SB 700 will do for storage what SB 1 did for solar over a decade ago, namely create a mainstream market by driving up demand and driving down costs all while creating jobs and clean energy choices for consumers.

From SB 1 we got to SB 100, and it’s time for California to lead on storage as well as it has lead on solar energy. After all, as California goes, so goes the rest of the country – and the rest of the country has a lot of catching up to do.

More:

SB 700 Passes California Assembly – SGIP Program Extended Five Years

New Study: Forget About Carbon Capture. Let’s Clean Up Solar Manufacturing

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

To continue powering the United States with coal without adding any adverse climatalogical effects, 89% of the United States would have to be covered in forest, according to a new study from the Michigan Technological Institute.

The study compared that route – interesting but ultimately futile – with the idea of shifting electricity generation to solar power (now you’re talking) and figuring out how to sequester the carbon produced in the solar manufacturing process instead (a much more manageable task).

[wds id=”3″]

(Kudos to the press release writer who put this subhead into the press release on the study: “The Giving Tree Won’t Give Enough for Carbon Neutral Coal.” Anyone with kids or parents both chuckled and teared-up at the reference.)

The study’s authors write:

Coal-fired power plants require 13 times more land to be carbon neutral than the manufacturing of solar panels. We’d have to use a minimum of 62% of U.S. land covered by optimal crops or cover 89 percent of the U.S. with average forests to do it.

One gets the sense that calculations like this are not going into the decision-making process of the federal bureaucrats currently trying to figure out how to save economically failing coal and nuclear plants. And that realization had at least one researcher shaking his head.

“We know that climate change is a reality, but we don’t want to live like cavemen,” says Joshua Pearce, professor of material sciences and electrical engineering at Michigan Tech, said in the release. “We need a method to make carbon neutral electricity. It just makes no sense whatsoever to use coal when you have solar available, especially with this data.”

The study recommended that instead of focusing on saving coal plants, innovations should instead focus on making the solar manufacturing process less carbon intensive. That way, you’re producing the best-of-all worlds – taking carbon-heavy coal plants out of generation and replacing them with more carbon-neutral solar manufacturing, leading the way to solar farms that require no carbon offset. The study says that would use 13 times less land than continuing to burn coal and trying to offset the carbon pollution used by it.

The killer stat is that to offset a 1 GW coal plant, you’d need to plant a forest the size of Maryland to capture its carbon output. You can see where that is not only not feasible, but frankly untenable.

Thanks to the Michigan Technological Institute, we now have even more stats to back up the contention that saving the coal plants is an insane idea. Quick, someone get Rick Perry on the line.

London And New York Mayors Say Cities Must Divest From Fossil Fuels In Guardian Op-Ed

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Over the weekend, two of the world’s most influential mayors – Bill de Blasio (mayor of New York City) and Sadiq Khan (mayor of London) – took to the pages of the British newspaper The Guardian to urge cities around the world to divest from companies that extract fossil fuels.

The op-ed came ahead of the Global Climate Action Summit, a gathering of world leaders designed to discuss issues surrounding climate change and other environmental issues. The summit starts on Wednesday in San Francisco.

[wds id=”3″]

The mayors wrote:

We believe that ending institutional investment in companies that extract fossil fuels and contribute directly to climate change can help send a very powerful message that renewables and low-carbon options are the future. If we want to fund the scale of transformation the world needs, we must foster sustainable investment and use the power of institutional investors, such as pension funds.

According to the article, less than 2% of London’s pension fund – which totals $7.1 billion – is invested in fossil-fuel generating companies, with more divesting coming this year (including eliminating investments in oil companies Shell and BP). New York has just begun its own divestment and expects to be completely divested within five years, the article reports.

Instead, New York touts the fact it has increased its use of solar energy six-fold since 2013 and which is the result in part from a push from the state’s governor Andrew Cuomo as well as de Blasio’s own progressive policies on the subject.

Both mayors acknowledge that divestment is not necessarily a straight path, and that there will be twists and turns along the way. But in urging their fellow mayors to divest, they say they are setting an example for country governments to follow:

We believe we can demonstrate to the world that divestment is a powerful tool and a prudent use of resources. And that, together, our cities – New York, London and many others around the world – can send a clear message to the fossil fuel industry: change your ways now and join us in tackling climate change.

I’d like to applaud de Blasio and Khan for their forward-thinking ways and their attempts at moral suasion through the press. Here’s hoping that coming out of the Global Climate Action Summit that even more cities will follow their lead and divest from fossil fuels.

More:

As New York and London mayors, we call on all cities to divest from fossil fuels