Author Archives Laura Arnold

Congress strikes deal to extend wind, solar tax credits and lift oil export ban

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 16, 2015  /   Posted in Federal energy legislation, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Congress strikes deal to extend wind, solar tax credits and lift oil export ban

 By | December 16, 2015

Dive Brief:

  • House Republicans unveiled a broad spending and tax legislation package on Tuesday night that includes multi-year extensions for federal tax incentives for wind and solar generation facilities. The tax extenders legislation would also lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports from the U.S.
  • Extensions for wind energy's $0.023/kWh production tax credit (PTC) and solar energy’s 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) were pushed by Congressional Democrats in exchange for lifting the ban on crude exports, a policy change long sought by Republicans and the oil and gas sector.
  • Under the tentative deal, the wind PTC would be extended through 2020 and would decline in value each year after December 2016 until it is phased out entirely. The solar ITC would be drawn down gradually through 2022.
  • The tax extenders legislation was paired with a $1.1 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September 2016. A spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan told Bloomberg that a schedule for floor debate on the bills would be announced this week.

Dive Insight:

While many Democrats and renewable energy adovcates oppose lifting the ban on oil exports imposed in 1975, Greentech Media reports they saw it as an opportunity to secure extensions for crucial tax incentives for wind and solar.

Democratic leaders said Monday they would not support any bill to lift the export ban if it did not include provisions to support renewables as well. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took to Twitter to draw a line in the sand:


 

We have 2 paths:

1. Pair oil export ban with policies to reduce carbon emissions

2. Pass govt funding without oil/renewables

If the legislation passes through the House and Senate and is signed into law, both the wind and solar industries would receive five year extensions on their tax credits, although the structure of the programs would change.

Any wind facility that begins construction before 2020 could be eligibile for tax credits, Ed Einowski, a partner at the law firm Stoel Rives, said in an email to Utility Dive.

"However, if construction begins in 2017, the credit is reduced by 20%, 40% if construction begins in 2018, and 60% if construction begins in 2019," he wrote. "These changes do not apply to any technologies except wind."

Solar facilities that begin construction before 2020 could qualify for the full 30% ITC under the tentative deal, according to Gregory Jenner, the co-chair of the Stoel Rives energy team, but the credits would phase out after that.

"If construction begins in 2020, the facility qualifies for a 26% credit," he wrote. "If construction begins in 2021, the facility qualifies for a 22% credit."

Facilities with construction starting after 2021 — or if construction begins before 2022 but the facility is not placed in service before 2024 — would qualify for a 10% credit. Residential solar systems would receive the same credits, but they would apply when the system is placed in service, rather than when construction began, according to Jenner, a former Treasury Department tax official.

President Obama opposes lifting the oil export ban on its own, but The Hill reports the White House has indicated this week it might support a deal that extended support for renewable energy.

“We oppose legislation that would lift the ban on the exporting of American crude oil,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday. “But we certainly do want to see Congress — and hopefully they will in the context of this budget agreement — make the kinds of investments in renewable and clean energy that are good for our economy and have the potential to create good American middle-class jobs down the line.”

Environmentalists are against lifting the ban at all, warning of the climactic consequences of encouraging more fossil fuel use. The move would be a boon for the U.S. oil and gas industry, which is struggling as crude prices approach seven-year lows.

Extension of the tax credits is expected to have a significant impact on the deployment of wind and solar. When Congress failed to extend the wind PTC in 2013, development fell 92% and 30,000 wind industry jobs were lost. The 2014 restoration brought back 23,000 jobs, according to the wind industry.

For solar, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that deployment would amount to 73 GW by 2022 without the ITC, but a five-year extension would result in 95 GW of installed capacity in that period.

Those numbers are likely to change given the modifications to the ITC in the deal, but Einowski expects the extensions to help eliminate some of the regulatory uncertainty surrounding renewable power.

"From the utilities perspective, it will also assist with the planning process many are involved in to displace fossil fuel loads with renewable power as it would take the pressure off to sign up renewables at favorable prices before the subsidies expire and permits a more measured approach," he wrote.

Recommended Reading

Greentech Media: Congress Is on the Verge of Passing Multi-Year Extensions for Solar and Wind Tax Credits
Bloomberg: Congress Reaches Fiscal Agreement Ending U.S. Oil Export Ban
The Hill: Spending deal to lift oil export ban

IndianaDG Pres. Laura Arnold Testifies Against NIPSCO Fixed Charge Increase; CAC Says “Nix the Fix!”

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 16, 2015  /   Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC)  /   No Comments

NIPSCO meeting

Commissioners from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) listen as members of the public voice their concerns over a requested rate increase by NIPSCO. (Jim Karczewski / Post-Tribune)

Residents question need for NIPSCO rate hike

By Michelle L. QuinnPost-Tribune, December 15, 2015 2:20 pm

 

Northwest Indiana residents may not have packed the Hammond High School auditorium for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission's hearing on a proposed NIPSCO rate increase, but those who did shared the same sentiment:

Don't raise the rates.

Everyone from pastors to politicians attended the Monday night hearing to try to ensure the utility company won't institute a $9 price hike – to $20 from $11 -- to its monthly flat rate.

The increase, if approved, would give NIPSCO $126.6 million in which to work, according to the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor.

Many of the people who came to remonstrate against the increase were on fixed incomes. Mary Ellen Slazyk, of Hammond, said she gets $694 a month from Social Security.

"Last month, my bill was $76.44; that's no problem. This month, the bill is $289.29, and this is just the beginning of winter," Slazyk said, adding that she did receive a one-time payment assistance of $475 from NIPSCO and a temporary rate reduction last year. "If (NIPSCO isn't) profitable, maybe someone else should take it over, because (its executives) aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck like many of us are."

The Rev. Asher Harris and the Rev. Dwight Gardner, both of Gary, pointed to their city's unemployment rate and that their congregations are predominantly older and on fixed-incomes as well. Theodore McClendon, also of Gary, called the proposed hike "an affront to people."

"There's an issue of skepticism here. We have no choices, no competition and no comparison or negotiation," McClendon said. "This is like a football coach from a major university; you know they make tons of money, so what if attached to their student fees was this man's severance?"

NIPSCO spokesperson Nick Meyer said the company, contrary to predominant belief, isn't forward looking with its request. Rather, the company has to prove to its stakeholders that expenses and improvements it's made are justified.

"Our last rate hike was in 2011," Meyer said. "Our biggest cost is power generation, followed by labor costs. At the end of the day, we want to determine rates that are both fair to the customers and the company."

But Laura Arnold, president of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance from Indianapolis, doesn't understand how this hike can be fair when there's no way to tell how the company came up with the numbers.

"When (NiSource executives) presented these changes in September, they said that they could charge a full $83.95 in fixed-rate charges, but that by charging only a 'modest' $20, they were gradually introducing the hike. This is without any electric consumption," she said.

Arnold said the current standard with charging for utilities is a low connection fee and rising generation charges, so to change the flat rate so drastically – a move that 25 states are considering or will be within the next two years – will push those who can afford to "go off the grid" to do so more quickly. That would leave those who're least able to pay the fee, she said.

"The commission needs to find another way to look at this issue," Arnold said. "It really deserves a special study."

Meyer said all information and data is available to the public, but some, such as the rate formula, need to be requested.

Meyer said public hearings will be held until the February evidentiary hearing before the IURC. The decision should be finalized by late summer.

Michelle L. Quinn is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.


Home

NISPCO wants $20 per month, before you use ANY electricity!

NIX the FIX! Tell NISPCO NO WAY to a higher fixed charge!

NIPSCO wants to raise your electric rates by 11.4% and your monthly fixed customer charge by a whopping 81.8%! This amounts to a monthly bill increase for the average NIPSCO residential customer of $16.79 or 21.2%.

For the second time in 5 years, NIPSCO has filed a base rate case at the Indiana Utility Regulatory commission (IURC). NIPSCO monthly electric bills have already increased nearly 30% over the last ten years. At the same time, Hoosier households struggle with declining and stagnant wages and significant increases in the cost of energy, health care, food, and other necessities. Enough is enough!

NIPSCO Average Monthly Electric Bills have increased nearly 30% in the last 10 years!


NIPSCO wants to significantly increase your monthly fixed charge from $11 to $20. This is the amount  you pay regardless of how much energy you use. 

According to  NIPSCO’s testimony, this is only the beginning. NIPSCO states in their testimony that it is their intent to gradually “increase the customer charge that applies to residential and small commercial customers,” going on to state, “the customer costs alone support a charge of $22.51, and the full fixed cost would support $83.95.” This would mean an eventual monthly fixed charge for residential customers of $83.95 whether or not you use a single kWh of electricity!

Charging more for using less through higher fixed charges disproportionately hurts households on low- or fixed-incomes.  It diminishes the longstanding principal of encouraging conservation.  It also imposes an unfair “tax” on farms, homes and businesses that choose to install solar panels, wind turbines, or other distributed energy technologies on their property.

NIPSCO blames the need to increase the fixed monthly charge on reduced energy sales as a result of increasing investments in energy efficiency and customer-owned generation like rooftop solar, as well as reductions in industrial energy usage due to factories closing and/or moving.

Customers should not be penalized for investing their own money to make their business or home more efficient or to generate their own energy! 

Residential and small business customers should not be forced to pay more because industrial facilities are shutting down. While NIPSCO may be collecting less revenues from industrial customers, NIPSCO’s cost to serve residential and small business customers DOES NOT INCREASE as a result. Cost-shifting to protect NIPSCO’s earnings is not equitable or fair.

There is one bright spot in the NIPSCO rate case.  NISPCO is asking to create a low-income program which will provide a one-time summer discount of $50 to help mitigate the impact of increasing bills on low-income households. All residential customers would pay a marginal charge of 20¢ per month to help keep the lights on in these homes. While the program does little to address the problem of monthly bill affordability and needs to be more robust, NIPSCO should be applauded for voluntarily proposing a program to help the most vulnerable among us.

NIPSCO Electric Base Rates Comparison
for the average customer using 698 kilowatt hours of electricity per month

This is the core of your electric bill - what you are charged for fixed costs and usage fees. This part of your NIPSCO bill makes up about 86% of your current total NIPSCO bill as of November 1, 2015.
Trackers: the other 14% of your 
NIPSCO Electric bill not included in "rates"

These trackers, also called “riders,” are currently included in your NIPSCO bill and added to the average bill you see above. The amount collected through trackers changes frequently as some are adjusted quarterly, while others change on a semi-annual or annual basis. NIPSCO is asking to consolidate Riders No. 672 & 673 and also proposes to continue using all of the other trackers. How much the trackers will add to your monthly bill moving forward is unknown to everyone but NIPSCO.

Total NIPSCO Electric Bill including trackers
Take Action Now!
Send comments to the OUCC and make your voice heard!
Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor
Attn: David Stippler
115 W. Washington St.
Suite 1500S
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(888) 441-2494 phone

Tell the OUCC and the IURC Regulators:

  • To oppose NIPSCO’s request to increase fixed monthly costs and charge you more for using less.
  • To oppose shifting costs to residential and small business customers to protect NIPSCO’s earnings.
  • To fight for residential customers to ensure that monthly bills are affordable, just, and reasonable.
Make sure to reference Cause Number 44688 in your comments!

 

Download CAC Fact Sheet HERE> CAC Fact Sheet 11-09-15 NIPSCO 44688

Odd Michigan lawmaker coalition fights solar rate cut

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 09, 2015  /   Posted in solar, wind  /   No Comments

Odd Michigan lawmaker coalition fights solar rate cut

, The Detroit News 8:18 a.m. EST December 8, 2015

Michigan’s two biggest power companies are locked in a battle with an unusual coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans over how much to pay for electricity from customers who install solar panels to lower their utility bills.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Power firms want to cut in half the rate they pay for electricity from customers with solar panels
  • The rate cut is opposed by an unusual partnership of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans
  • The “green tea” coalition pushes policies for alternate energy sources and more choice for consumers
  • Utility companies argue their hourly electrical rates include a small subsidy to solar panel users

 

DTE Energy and Consumers Energy want to cut in half the rate they must pay to such consumers, arguing that the current “net metering” rate amounts to a subsidy that is unfair to other electricity consumers.

But the “green tea” coalition of environmental Democrats and tea party-oriented Republicans say they oppose the utilities’ proposal because they want to promote more power choices for customers and the expansion of alternative energy sources.

“We ought to be incentivizing diversity and competition in our energy market ... but the posture of the big utilities is to oppose all competition and diversity,” said tea party-oriented Republican Rep. Gary Glenn of Midland, who is aligned with renewable power advocate Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor.

The utility companies argue their proposal is fairer to all of their other customers, whose hourly electrical rates arguably include a small subsidy to solar panel users that will grow as more homeowners turn to self-generated energy.

“These customers (solar panel owners) still are using the grid,” said DTE Energy renewable energy director Dave Harwood. “It’s several million dollars per year that gets spread over all of our other utility customers.”

The battle is a smaller but still intense fight in the larger debate about how lawmakers should rewrite the state’s energy laws. In March, Gov. Rick Snyder called for a switch from coal to natural gas as the main source of base electrical generation, and set an ambitious goal of trying to satisfy up to 40 percent of the state’s power needs within a decade from wind turbines, other renewable sources and strong energy-saving measures.

Self-generated solar energy is a related issue involving a small but growing portion of the two power giants’ 4 million Lower Peninsula customers.

About 1,840 utility customers have spent as much as $20,000 to $30,000 apiece for solar panels to electrify their lights and appliances as well as feed power into the electrical grid for an offsetting credit on their monthly bills. They’re entitled to be credited at a “retail” rate of 15.4 cents per kilowatt hour through a billing mechanism called net metering, Harwood said.

There could be significant growth of this little-used option as more consumers become aware of it and are attracted to solar energy’s declining costs, utility officials acknowledge. So DTE and Consumers want to reduce its future impact on their bottom lines while rolling out their own solar setups to meet the demand for more green energy. Both companies are publicly traded.

There is Senate legislation, including one bill sponsored by Republican Sen. John Proos of St. Joseph, that calls for the rate reduction. A package of energy bills sent to the House floor contain complex amendments whose impact on net metering is unclear.

The utilities’ proposal would hurt Mark Hagerty, who owns a Pontiac solar panel business that he expects to clear $1 million in sales this year. Hagerty said it would would harm sales to customers such as David Reed of West Bloomfield, who installed solar panels on his home to save money.

“Power companies for the first time are encountering competition and are trying to quash it,” Hagerty said. “It’s very unfair. We’re putting power into the grid that’s worth three times what we’re taking off the grid.”

That’s because solar panel users send power to the grid during peak-use daylight hours, when utilities are allowed to charge their highest rates, and draw electricity off the system at night when power is worth one-third as much, he said.

‘I don’t pay a bill’

Nancy Popa, Consumers energy supply operations-renewable energy director, said self-power customers are getting a special deal that doesn’t require them to pay their full share of costs to maintain utilities’ “poles and lines.”

“They use it 24 hours per day ... to import or export (power),” she said. “If they’re generating energy, we believe they should be compensated at the rate of energy — not energy plus the distribution costs.”

“They also tend to be our more-affluent customers,” said DTE’s Harwood, adding that not everyone can afford $20,000 to $30,000 for solar panels and the extra costs would be shared by less-affluent customers.

“All I know is that I don’t pay a (power) bill,” said West Bloomfield’s Reed, whose ground-level solar panels went online in October 2010. He builds up credits on sunny summer days and cashes them in when his panels are idle on overcast winter days.

The Bloomfield Hills High School music teacher, who plans to retire at the end of the year, said he feels secure having his home paid off and a home-based energy system that pays for itself.

Reed hasn’t followed the issue closely but said the utilities’ proposal “sounds like a power grab.”

Western Michigan solar panel user Daniel Zimmer charged that the utilities are using “propaganda” to try to strongly discourage other customers from generating their own power.

Zimmer and his wife live in a 1,200-square-foot home on 11 acres near West Olive. He said he installed a 5-kilowatt solar array in 2011 and boosted it to 10 kilowatts with more panels in 2013 as an alternative to investing that money in a 401(k) plan for his retirement.

“There are assurances the sun is going to shine,” said Zimmer, who doesn’t consider himself affluent. “You never know what’s going to happen on Wall Street.”

He said his solar panels generate enough excess power that he has built up a $1,300 credit with Consumers Energy. Nevertheless, he said, he pays a $20 monthly utility charge.

‘Green tea’ ideas

Glenn and Irwin reject the utilities’ arguments as theoretical, unfair and shortsighted.

“We approach this issue from very different sociological angles ... (but) both believe people should be able to generate power and be paid a fair price when they generate it,” Irwin said.

Among pending House energy bills with unknown prospects are at least two involving green-tea coalitions:

■Glenn and six other Republicans are allied with Rep. Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit, and two other Democrats on a bill, opposed by the utilities, that would entitle groups of customers to partner in solar arrays or wind turbines and be reimbursed for excess power they’d generate and feed into the system.

■Irwin, Robinson and four other Democrats are joined by Republican Reps. Ed McBroom of Vulcan and Larry Inman of Williamsburg as sponsors of a bill that would reinforce the right of alternative energy customers to be credited at retail rates for power they supply the grid.

Irwin argues solar energy customers pay retail power rates for what they use when their panels are out of commission at night, so they at least should be credited at or near average retail rates when they pump high-value energy into the system during the peak demand hours between noon and 6 p.m.

Glenn says communities, neighborhoods, Farm Bureau chapters or churches should be able to collectively own a solar array or a wind farm serving their energy needs. For excess power they send into the system, he said, they should be reimbursed at retail rates, minus a power grid maintenance fee negotiated with the utilities.

“You don’t put all your eggs in one basket,” Glenn said. “The more diverse and more competitive the market is, the more secure it is.”

Meanwhile, DTE and Consumers are arguing they can provide solar energy cheaper than customers could on their own.

DTE has the state’s largest solar panel spread at Domino’s Farms near the M-14 and US-23 intersection outside Ann Arbor, plus 22 smaller solar arrays and four more on the way.

DTE is doing so in part so it can offer customers opportunities to buy into the utility’s solar panels rather than installing their own. Economies of scale make DTE’s solar power a better deal, Harwood claims.

Consumers Energy is preparing to build “solar gardens” at Grand Valley State and Western Michigan universities with the same goal.

gheinlein@detroitnews.com

 

WSJ: Obama and Bill Gates to Launch Clean Energy Initiative

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 30, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 Obama and Bill Gates to Launch Clean Energy Initiative

The announcement of the plan coincides with the start of an international climate conference in Paris

Watch video http://on.wsj.com/1IuZzSt

PARIS—President Barack Obama and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates will launch a multi-billion-dollar initiative Monday to accelerate clean-energy research and development as part of a global effort to fight climate change.

The announcement is timed to provide a jolt of momentum as world leaders gather in Paris for the start of a two-week summit focused on forging an international agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The president and Mr. Gates will join with other heads of state and investors to detail complementary public and private commitments to clean-energy innovation.

The goal, Obama administration officials said, is to speed the pace of progress on new technologies that will help curb emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures.

Brian Deese, a senior White House adviser who specializes in climate issues, said the initiative “should help to send a strong signal that the world is committed to helping to try to mobilize the resources necessary to ensure that countries around the world can deploy clean energy solutions in cost-effective ways.”

The 20 countries that have signed on to Mission Innovation will pledge to double their investments in clean-energy research and development during the next five years. The U.S. now spends more than $5 billion annually, administration officials said.

The participating countries, which represent about 75% of global carbon-dioxide emissions from the electricity sector, include China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and France. The diversity of the countries’ energy interests should help ensure a range of new technologies is developed, administration officials said.

In the U.S., winning approval from the Republican-controlled Congress for additional clean-energy funds could prove to be a challenge. GOP lawmakers have been fierce opponents of Mr. Obama’s climate agenda, which they say will kill jobs and drive up electricity prices.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz expressed confidence the initiative would attract bipartisan support, saying innovation efforts have had broad backing in the past.

As the countries kick off the effort, Mr. Gates simultaneously will launch the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a private-sector push aimed at bringing early-stage energy programs into the marketplace, administration officials said.

Earlier this year, Mr. Gates committed to invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology during the next five years, saying that mitigating climate change would also help to fight poverty.

“I think this issue is especially important because, of all the people who will be affected by climate change, those in poor countries will suffer the most,” Mr. Gates wrote this summer. “It would be a terrible injustice to let climate change undo any of the past half-century’s progress against poverty and disease—and doubly unfair because the people who will be hurt the most are the ones doing the least to cause the problem.”

Write to Colleen McCain Nelson at colleen.nelson@wsj.com

Why federal tax credit expiration would hit Midwest solar the hardest including Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 16, 2015  /   Posted in Federal energy legislation, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Wayne National Forest Solar Panel Construction

Why federal tax credit expiration would hit Midwest solar the hardest

PHOTO BY

Solar advocates nationwide are holding their breath as Congress debates extending the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar, a crucial tool for financing residential and commercial installations.

Legislators who support solar are pushing to include the ITC in a broader tax extenders bill making its way through Congress.

Midwestern renewable energy developers and advocates say this region may have the most at stake with the ITC’s fate. Midwestern states typically lack strong state-level policies to support the nascent but promising solar industry, they say, and low electricity prices mean the payback time for solar is longer than in other regions.

The ITC offers credits on federal income taxes for individuals and businesses equal to 30 percent of the cost spent on solar installations. Without the extension, the commercial break will drop to 10 percent and the residential support will be eliminated when the credit expires at the end of 2016.

Without the credit, many installations would simply not be built, developers and advocates say.

“It’s crucial...it truly is a main factor for the majority of projects we win,” said Ray Davis, president of OGW Energy Resources, an Ohio-based developer that does commercial, industrial and residential solar across the Midwest. “As we are primarily a coal region, our grid kilowatt-hour costs are relatively low as compared to other regions. Therefore the ITC truly is the part of the puzzle that makes solar fiscally feasible in the Midwest.

“It’s an integral part of the decision-making,” for clients, he continued. “If we’re dealing with a business we eventually get to a CFO or controller who has a fiduciary responsibility to protect their employees and shareholders. If the system doesn’t make sense financially, they’re not going to do it.”

Legislators negotiating

The tax extenders bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee in July currently includes a two-year extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind and other renewables, which expired at the end of 2014. But the bill does not include the solar ITC.

The version of the tax extenders bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee does not include either clean energy incentive.

Legislators have reportedly proposed an addition to the bill that would allow solar projects to collect the ITC as long as they are started, not completed, by the expiration date. There is reportedly bi-partisan support for this measure, including from Republican Sens. Dean Heller (NV) and Rob Portman (OH), and Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden (OR).

During the hearing on the bill in the Senate Finance Committee last summer, Heller said, “I'm disappointed that we can't reach consensus on language that would truly give parity for an industry that is not only important for my home state of Nevada, but frankly, helps to diversify our nation's energy portfolio.”

‘Seeing the ITC drop off a cliff would have a devastating impact on Midwest installers.’

The offices of Portman and other Midwestern legislators – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R- Ill.) – did not return calls and emails for this story.

Meanwhile solar energy advocates are pushing for a five-year extension of the credit, through 2021, in addition to the deadline policy revision.

“Seeing the ITC drop off a cliff would have a devastating impact on Midwest installers,” said Amy Heart, senior manager of public policy for the solar developer Sunrun Inc. “Because state-level policies in the Midwest have come and gone, installers in the Midwest have really benefited from and rely on that federal solar ITC. That’s kept this market going and allowed people to keep planning for the future.”

A drastic difference

An analysis by Bloomberg News Energy Finance (BNEF), commissioned by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), found that a failure to pass the ITC extension could mean significant declines in installed solar energy in the Midwest.

For the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa and Ohio, BNEF predicted a cumulative 3,428 MW of solar installed by 2022 with an extension, and 2,331 MW without one. Currently, there are close to 500 MW installed in these states.

Nationwide, BNEF estimated, cumulative installed solar in 2022 would be 95 GW nationwide with an ITC extension and just 73GW without one. Utility solar installations would make up the biggest sector of that amount. On the residential front, BNEF forecast that in 2021, more than 4 GW would be built with an ITC extension, compared to 2.5GW without it.

“With the ITC expiration, we expect solar companies to downsize and retrench to their strongest states, those where they’re already established and sound state policies are already in place,” said SEIA spokesman Dan Whitten.

“This obviously leaves many consumers in Midwestern states waiting to take advantage of the benefits that solar currently provides to customers in states like California, New York and Massachusetts. This would be a major setback to the Midwest both economically and environmentally, as solar creates more jobs per megawatt than any other technology, creates zero carbon emissions and can be deployed cost-effectively and quickly.”

Hitting a cliff

Heart said that not only is an extension needed, but Congress needs to pass it quickly.

“Acting on it this fall is really important,” she said. “It expires at the end of 2016, but if we don’t have it [passed soon], sales stop in March – because [qualifying projects] have to be operational by the end of 2016.”

She added that distributors of solar equipment and solar developers are “already in crisis mode” trying to get projects completed by the end of 2016. So smaller Midwestern installations are at a competitive disadvantage compared to larger planned arrays in California or other states with well-developed solar markets.

Heart said solar advocates only want a “level playing field” with other energy sources that have long enjoyed government subsidies. And, she said, developers expect the Midwestern market could eventually reach a level where it can thrive without supports.

“As the market builds, that incentive or tax credit fades away – it’s a ramp-down, not a cliff,” she said. “An extension of a few years with a planned ramp-down – that’s absolutely up for conversation. But [the 2016 expiration would mean] the damage of 10 years of support and investment, then just when we’re getting our feet under us in the Midwest, we hit a cliff. That’s never good economic design.”

The bigger picture

Davis said the constant battle to extend the ITC for a year or two at a time “drives me crazy.”

‘If there were no subsidies associated with energy, solar would be competitive in and of itself.’

“If renewables are to be part of our country’s economic and energy future, the ITC should not be extended for a year or two, it needs to be a 10-year proposition or longer,” he said. “I really despise the kick-the-can-down-the-road mentality. If it makes sense then make it permanent, or very long-term.”

Jason Edens is co-founder of the Rural Renewable Energy Alliance (RREAL), a Minnesota-based non-profit organization that specializes in making solar accessible to lower-income customers. He notes that the ITC, like all tax credits, is a benefit mainly for more affluent companies and individuals who have income tax liabilities large enough to benefit from credits. If someone does not owe much in income taxes, they can’t really collect the 30 percent credit for a solar installation.

This is among the reasons he and others say that ultimately, a truly “level playing field” is the way to shift to a cleaner energy future.

“In an ideal world energy wouldn’t be subsidized, period,” Edens said. “If there were no subsidies associated with energy, solar would be competitive in and of itself. Coal and electric generation in general has been highly subsidized since World War II. Solar needs tools such as the ITC in order to prosper given the disparity. But if we move beyond incentives and truly internalize the environmental costs of different types of energy, it will be a slam dunk for clean energy.”

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG