Friday, 16th of May 2008
Friday, 16th of May 2008
"California" — 8 posts

In an example that illustrates the number and complexity of the challenges facing solar power - and the larger movement towards clean and green energy and products - a lawsuit pitting two seemingly eco-conscious families against one another has been (tentatively) settled in Sunnyvale, CA. The dispute centers around a residential solar PV system and a strand of redwood trees that had grown tall enough to shade it. How you weigh the merits of localized, clean energy generation by solar PV against natural, oxygen-generating and eye pleasing tree, I'm not sure. But a judge found it clearly defined by California law that solar PV has the right of way. Luckily, this is a headline making case for the very reason that it is the exception to the rule. The Solar Shade Act is a valuable tool for providing home- and building-owners the assurance that their investment in solar PV will not be diminshed by a neighbor's upward expansion of their structure. This is surely not the last time, though, that distributed solar generation will face growing pains from unlikely, even ironic scenarios.
I can't but echo the sentiments of Merc reporter Vindu Goel: not bad for government work. A Berkeley, CA official has moved through the city council a proposal to finance residential and commercial solar energy and efficiency projects through low-interest municipal bonds, with the cost of the system paid back to the city through a tax assessment tied to the property. Brilliant in its simplicity, the idea overcomes one of the major hurdles of residential systems, which is homeowners' unwillingness to make a capital expenditure or take out a bank loan for a system with a payback of 10 years or more. The installed energy system belongs to the property, not to the current owner. Future owners inherit the system and also the obligation to pay for it (until it's paid off), in a sense the same way an owner or buyer pays for streets, water, sewer systems, etc. The proposal accomplishes this without any major new beauracracy; for that reason Mr. Ken Alex would seem wrong when he says that "there's no reason you couldn't have a statewide assessment": actually, there is, since property taxes are assessed and collected at the municipal level. While we'd love to see this program spread rapidly, the state of California already has one Solar Initiative in place. They should focus on working out the kinks in that, and then perhaps expanding it, before trying to tackle something else.
Add Macy's to the quickly the growing list of retailers who are making a significant deployment of solar energy systems on some of their California stores. This list includes Whole Foods, Staples, Kohl's, and Wal-Mart, who are all pursuing solar energy service arrangements by which they purchase electricity from a solar generation system located on their roof but owned by someone else. In this case, SunPower/PowerLight will build 26 systems, sell 15 of them outright to Macy's, and operate the remaining 11 under solar energy services Power Purchase Agreements. The solar energy services model is compelling - clearly a lot of big names are jumping on board - but Macy's, at least, seems willing to explore the financial and logistical impact of owning the solar photovoltaics compared to just buying the output.
From the recent annoucement that Canada will play host to North America's largest solar PV installation (so far), to Canadian government studies about the potential PV, to the Canadian press, we keep hearing a lot of cheerleading for solar power from up north.

OK, so advanced technology development - CHECK - low cost manufacturing in China - CHECK - ok so that's everything we need for costs to drop 40% in a couple years? If solar power has actually achieved economic parity in California, as claimed, when is someone going to tell us Californians?
At some point the city of Bentonville, AR, population 30,000, became damn near the center of the world. Bentonville is home to Wal-Mart. Today, news out of Bentonville that everyone has been (well, we have) waiting for. Wal-Mart will move forward with their pilot of solar power systems at 22 of their stores in California and Hawaii.

While Wal-Mart has been hush hush about the details until now, the names on the short list are perhaps unsurprising. PowerLight, SunEdison, and BP Solar will split the contract, with each doing 7 or 8 installs. Interestingly, while we have seen the service provider owning the RECs generated by their installs (presumably to sell them after market), in this case Wal-Mart will retain ownership of them. Presumably that knocks their contract cost up a bit, and provides evidence that Wal-Mart is thinking about a little bit more than just the bottom line in this case. Huzzah.
Wineries are great candidates for solar energy generation. Usually located in places that get plenty of sun, they have lots of open space and tend to concentrate their electricity usage during the fall harvest - which means that they can take advantage of time-of-use metering. Chateau Montelena Winery, famous as the California winery that fired "the shot heard 'round the world" - that is, their California Chardonnay that in 1976 beat out French wine for the first time - has taken the leap from the old world to the new world with their installation of a 220kW solar PV system. You'd think that it goes without saying that using solar-generated electricity would not impact the quality of the wine; but perhaps it needs to be said after all: "I can also assure our clients that we will continue to deliver the winemaking excellence they have come to expect from us.” says Chateau Montelena winemaker Bo Barrett.

If there's one thing that so-called Big Box Stores have in abundance, it's roof space. So it's fitting slash appropriate that more of these "big box" retailers are looking placing solar PV generation systems on their robust roofts. There was last week's Kohl's Department Stores accouncement with SunEdison. Wal-Mart is ever so secretly evaluating solar energy generation. Now Target has begun to roll solar PV onto several of its California stores. A store in Stockton, CA, is used as an example; it's not made explicit the power output of the system, but one can estimate from the description that this store has a 300-350kW installation. Interestingly, it also mentions that only 40% of the roof is used. There're a number of reasons that they didn't build a bigger system - perhaps 300-350kW completely zeros out electricity costs for that store. That case would highlight the limitations of net-metering; why can't Target build a 700kW system on a store in sunny Stockton and use the excess generation to offset electricity usage at other locations? Feed-in tarrifts would allow them to do just that, using dollars from generation at one store to pay for usage at other stores.

Target has a good history of social responsibility - known for giving back to their communities in a more significant way than some other big box giants - so it's a bit more believable to hear them say " "Part of Target's DNA is our commitment to the community, and certainly that ties into the environment as well..."; but there is clearly an economic component that Target, Wal-Mart, Kohl's and others are beginning to catch on to.

SunEdison landed a big deal today, entering engaging Kohl's Department Stores to install solar PV systems on 64 stores out of Kohl's 80 stores in California. Already in chain deals with Whole Foods and Staples, SunEdison seems to be positioning themselves for potentially explosive growth.