Although the bill which would allow Florida’s utilities to build an additional 730MW of solar power failed to pass during this past legislative session, it is by no means dead. On the contrary, Senator Mike Haridopolis during the recent energy summit in Orlando claimed that the reason why this bill died was because Gov. Crist made it clear that he would veto it. After Governor Crist called for a special session, Senator Haridopolis said that they would only attend if the Governor would let this vital bill pass. They did attend the special session, and walked out within 1 hour. I really think that our hired lawmakers need to do due diligence before buying into whatever FP&L and the other investor owned utilities claim. Our leadership believe that building 730MW of solar power will create jobs which is not untrue. But just how many jobs will this create? Not 40,000 as FP&L claims, and certainly not permanent full time jobs.
Recently, local residents went up against Xcel Energy’s plans to build a major solar farm in Colorado and won. The residents argued for a decentralized power system (distributed generation), smaller scale solar for use in their own valley. They argued against Xcel's MW solar farm and were triumphant. So why is it that the citizens of Florida are denied the right to argue for distributed generation? We elected our representatives to do our bidding, and they just appear to be doing the bidding of the major utilities. Maybe the reason why the residents of Colorado's San Luis Valley won was because they had a significant ace in their corner- the support of billionaire Louis Moore Bacon.
What is it going to take to get the legislature to start paying attention to what their constituents want? Do we want to have to pay to build these major solar farms? No. Will we directly benefit from this free energy from the sun? No. Will we have ownership in these solar farms that we will be forced to invest in? No. Bottom line, we need to be able to voice our dissidence at allowing the utilities to continue control all the power.
The intelligent energy pundits across the globe agree that distributed generation of power is vital for our energy market. Approximately 50% of the electricity generated at the power plant is lost by the time it reaches our homes. Line loss is significant and has a multitude of negative affects on our environment. Distributed generation of power, that is generating power near where it is consumed (i.e. on our rooftops or backyard) helps the grid, helps national security, and helps individual families save money with free energy from the sun.
Florida is now without any financial incentives for solar energy. The legislature refused to pass a public benefits fund which would have cost each household .25 a month and created $30 million for solar incentives for families. Why? Because leadership claimed that this .25 a month was a "tax" (which is true) and that they could not tax Florida's struggling families. However, they were not a bit put off by forcing the ratepayers to foot the bill for 730MW of solar power. At $6.00 a watt (which is what FP&L paid for their two solar farms) this equal $4.38 billion dollars. That's a pretty darn hefty price tag for an investment that we don't have a say in.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
FP&L Publishes False Findings To Get Out Of Paying For Solar Incentives
It came as no surprise when Sam Cochran, owner of Russell & Sun Solar called to tell me about his research on FP&L's latest attempts to get out of having to pay solar incentives to individual and business ratepayers, per the PSC's instructions last year. FP&L must think that they are above using FSEC's industry standard tested methodology to validate their findings. If they used FSEC's calculations for kWh output for PV modules and BTU's for solar thermal collectors they would not have any grounds for arguing against a solar incentive plan for their ratepayers. Thank you Sam for calling them out. I think everyone needs to write to the PSC and focus the spotlight on FP&L's outrageous fiction.
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
To whom it may concern; July 9th, 2010
I am a solar contractor headquartered in Melbourne. I am writing to strongly encourage approval of FPL’s original proposal (dated March 30, 2010) with respect to the solar programs described. I also would like to explain why I believe FPL’s test results should be disregarded as a basis for rejecting solar programs; their numbers are inaccurate and misleading.
FPL claims that a solar water heating system consisting of an 80gal tank and a 4x10 collector will offset 1482kWh per customer per year at the meter1. Russell & Sun Solar has been installing solar water heaters for 28+ years here in Central Florida so we know that the numbers FPL uses to justify their tests are completely inaccurate. The Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) also knows: they have measured and rated these collectors in a controlled environment to produce 34,400 BTUs per day which translates into at least 3681kWh per year per customer, not 1482kWs as FPL claims. FPL’s number is so far off that it appears that they have fabricated numbers for their tests. It is no wonder that this program fails.
FPL further falsely claims that PV systems will produce 5373kWh2. Industry-accepted calculations for a 10kW PV system are 15,802kWh and 7901kWh for a 5kW system per customer per year. Our company has installed several hundred kWs of PV. We routinely measure most of our systems so we know that FPL’s number for PV savings is way too low - up to three times too low. Again, there is little wonder this program fails FPL’s tests.
FPL is even more misleading when citing the performance of Business Solar Water Heating systems3. Again, FPL should have consulted the national experts, FSEC, to make their determinations. We have two systems that we deliberately and accurately measure. Both have just four collectors; they are small systems for a business. Each of these systems produces at least 14,726 kWh per year, not 3652kWh as FPL claims. FPL is off in their calculations by 4X!
It is clear to me that FPL has supported their proposal with numbers that are inaccurate at best and deliberately misleading at worst. This tactic is not new to FPL. In a report authored by Washington Economics Group (FPL is one of their largest customers), 40,000 jobs will be created if Florida legislature authorizes the utility companies to build 700MW of solar power. This number has not been supported by anything we have seen. In fact, we have a recent example in Cape Canaveral at the 25MW solar farm installed by FPL. This project has created three, yes, just three, permanent jobs.
I believe it is important to emphasize the quasi-irrelevance of the testing methods used by FPL. The E-RIM test is highly suspicious for too many reasons to explain here. It is probable that this test should not be used at all. The E-TRC test is much more relevant, but it does not address adequately the many other factors important to Floridians today, such as our environment, GHG emissions, job creation, or long-term energy policy and sustainability. For example, it is clear that Florida must remain as pristine as possible, especially our beaches, in order to support our largest industry, tourism. How do any of these tests address this?
My final concern is this: is it really prudent or appropriate to allow our utility companies to dictate our energy policies? Energy policies must be a reflection of many factors, including recent events, societal trends, and what is good for Floridians and Americans.
I strongly believe that Florida must be a leader in the renewable energy industry. Utility incentives are one good way to grow renewable energies. Please support incentive plans through our IOUs. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Samuel Cochrane, President
Russell & Sun Solar, Inc.
Melbourne
Notes:
1. On page 107 referencing the Residential Solar Water Heating program, FPL publishes this chart:
At the Meter
Year Per customer kWh Reduction Per customer winter kWh Reduction Per customer Summer kWh Reduction Total annual kWh Reduction Total annual Winter kWh Reduction Total annual Summer kWh Reduction
2010 1482 0.45 0.22 2,024,835 615 301
2011 1482 0.45 0.22 6,799,875 2065 1009
2012 1482 0.45 0.22 7,235,124 2197 1074
2013 1482 0.45 0.22 7,371,468 2238 1094
2014 1482 0.45 0.22 7,365,540 2237 1093
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Residential Photovoltaic System program, from page 110 of their amended proposal (dated July1, 2010):
Year Per customer kWh reduction Per customer Winter kWh reduction Per customer Summer kWh reduction Total annual kWh reduction Total annual winter kWh reduction Total annual summer kWh reduction
2010 5373 .05 1.70 605,222 6 191
2011 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2012 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2013 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2014 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. On page 109 referencing the Business Solar Water Heating program, FPL publishes this chart:
Year Per customer kWh reduction Per customer Winter kWh reduction Per customer Summer kWh reduction Total annual kWh reduction Total annual winter kWh reduction Total annual summer kWh reduction
2010 3652 .07 1.00 41,994 1 11
2011 3652 .07 1.00 155,555 3 42
2012 3652 .07 1.00 189,299 4 52
2013 3652 .07 1.00 229,171 4 63
2014 3652 .07 1.00 275,797 5 75
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
To whom it may concern; July 9th, 2010
I am a solar contractor headquartered in Melbourne. I am writing to strongly encourage approval of FPL’s original proposal (dated March 30, 2010) with respect to the solar programs described. I also would like to explain why I believe FPL’s test results should be disregarded as a basis for rejecting solar programs; their numbers are inaccurate and misleading.
FPL claims that a solar water heating system consisting of an 80gal tank and a 4x10 collector will offset 1482kWh per customer per year at the meter1. Russell & Sun Solar has been installing solar water heaters for 28+ years here in Central Florida so we know that the numbers FPL uses to justify their tests are completely inaccurate. The Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) also knows: they have measured and rated these collectors in a controlled environment to produce 34,400 BTUs per day which translates into at least 3681kWh per year per customer, not 1482kWs as FPL claims. FPL’s number is so far off that it appears that they have fabricated numbers for their tests. It is no wonder that this program fails.
FPL further falsely claims that PV systems will produce 5373kWh2. Industry-accepted calculations for a 10kW PV system are 15,802kWh and 7901kWh for a 5kW system per customer per year. Our company has installed several hundred kWs of PV. We routinely measure most of our systems so we know that FPL’s number for PV savings is way too low - up to three times too low. Again, there is little wonder this program fails FPL’s tests.
FPL is even more misleading when citing the performance of Business Solar Water Heating systems3. Again, FPL should have consulted the national experts, FSEC, to make their determinations. We have two systems that we deliberately and accurately measure. Both have just four collectors; they are small systems for a business. Each of these systems produces at least 14,726 kWh per year, not 3652kWh as FPL claims. FPL is off in their calculations by 4X!
It is clear to me that FPL has supported their proposal with numbers that are inaccurate at best and deliberately misleading at worst. This tactic is not new to FPL. In a report authored by Washington Economics Group (FPL is one of their largest customers), 40,000 jobs will be created if Florida legislature authorizes the utility companies to build 700MW of solar power. This number has not been supported by anything we have seen. In fact, we have a recent example in Cape Canaveral at the 25MW solar farm installed by FPL. This project has created three, yes, just three, permanent jobs.
I believe it is important to emphasize the quasi-irrelevance of the testing methods used by FPL. The E-RIM test is highly suspicious for too many reasons to explain here. It is probable that this test should not be used at all. The E-TRC test is much more relevant, but it does not address adequately the many other factors important to Floridians today, such as our environment, GHG emissions, job creation, or long-term energy policy and sustainability. For example, it is clear that Florida must remain as pristine as possible, especially our beaches, in order to support our largest industry, tourism. How do any of these tests address this?
My final concern is this: is it really prudent or appropriate to allow our utility companies to dictate our energy policies? Energy policies must be a reflection of many factors, including recent events, societal trends, and what is good for Floridians and Americans.
I strongly believe that Florida must be a leader in the renewable energy industry. Utility incentives are one good way to grow renewable energies. Please support incentive plans through our IOUs. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Samuel Cochrane, President
Russell & Sun Solar, Inc.
Melbourne
Notes:
1. On page 107 referencing the Residential Solar Water Heating program, FPL publishes this chart:
At the Meter
Year Per customer kWh Reduction Per customer winter kWh Reduction Per customer Summer kWh Reduction Total annual kWh Reduction Total annual Winter kWh Reduction Total annual Summer kWh Reduction
2010 1482 0.45 0.22 2,024,835 615 301
2011 1482 0.45 0.22 6,799,875 2065 1009
2012 1482 0.45 0.22 7,235,124 2197 1074
2013 1482 0.45 0.22 7,371,468 2238 1094
2014 1482 0.45 0.22 7,365,540 2237 1093
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Residential Photovoltaic System program, from page 110 of their amended proposal (dated July1, 2010):
Year Per customer kWh reduction Per customer Winter kWh reduction Per customer Summer kWh reduction Total annual kWh reduction Total annual winter kWh reduction Total annual summer kWh reduction
2010 5373 .05 1.70 605,222 6 191
2011 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2012 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2013 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2014 5373 .05 1.70 1,826,888 17 578
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. On page 109 referencing the Business Solar Water Heating program, FPL publishes this chart:
Year Per customer kWh reduction Per customer Winter kWh reduction Per customer Summer kWh reduction Total annual kWh reduction Total annual winter kWh reduction Total annual summer kWh reduction
2010 3652 .07 1.00 41,994 1 11
2011 3652 .07 1.00 155,555 3 42
2012 3652 .07 1.00 189,299 4 52
2013 3652 .07 1.00 229,171 4 63
2014 3652 .07 1.00 275,797 5 75
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monday, July 5, 2010
Energy Independence in Florida- Not So Much
My google news alert tagged an Op-Ed piece written by Daniel Tilson that is the most refreshing ,honest, telling it like it is article I have read about the tragic state of current affairs in Florida. My mother called as soon as she heard the news that President Obama had pledged $2 Billion for solar projects. Then I read that this money is going to the big utilities which is good for the environment, but not so good for speeding along our economic recovery. Why is President Obama's administration giving all this money to the utilities and ignoring the rights of individuals? Our families want to save money on their utility bills (not pay more). We want to reduce GHG and most importantly we want to create green jobs within the private sector by providing incentives to families to reduce the cost of installing solar energy. In EarthNews Ms. Cussons writes "Obama expressed hope that these projects would assist economic recovery in the private sector." President Obama, you must do more than just hope. You need to act. Job creation in the private sector will ONLY grow if there is incentive money available for the average homeowner. Reducing the cost of installing solar by providing incentives will grow more jobs in the private sector than in the public sector. Florida boasts 11.2% unemployment, BUT within the solar industry in Florida, unemployment looms at nearly 30%. Incentives for individuals and not just utilities will put these green workers back to work, so stop hoping. While large scale solar is an important initiative to our environment, you are giving everything to the utilities. We're not seeing anything trickle down to those who elected you to office. Individuals needs incentives for solar. You can't hope to help the private sector unless you start acting. When utilities ramp up for building a solar farm, the jobs created only last as long as the construction phase. FP&L's Acadia farm is a perfect example. At its peak, FP&L claimed to have created 400 jobs (which I think is probably way overstated). Now, there are only 3 individuals who remain. If money is made available for solar incentives, the small entrepreneurs who make up 85% of the solar installation industry will be able to hire new workers, and put unemployed workers back to work as Full Time Employees, not just contract labor. Dollar for dollar it can be proven that more jobs can be created in the private sector than in the public sector. And for those who have forgotten, the private sector is the backbone of our economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
