Duke Energy: Ramping Up Its Solar Ambitions with Stake in REC Solar but Why Indiana HB 1320?

Posted by Laura Arnold / February 14, 2015 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2910786-duke-energy-ramping-up-its-solar-ambitions

Duke Energy: Ramping Up Its Solar Ambitions

Feb. 12, 2015 9:30 AM ET | 5 comments | About: Duke Energy Corporation (DUK)

Disclosure: The author is long SCTY. (More...)

Summary

Duke Energy has acquired a majority stake in REC Solar, which should allow Duke Energy to stake a foothold in the promising distributed solar markets.
Duke Energy and REC Solar make for an incredibly synergistic partnership, with Duke Energy providing for cheap capital and influence, and with REC Solar providing for its experience an talent.
Because REC Solar's business directly conflicts with Duke Energy's centralized fossil fuels business, such an acquisition will only be worthwhile if distributed solar eventually becomes the dominant electricity generation model.
Duke Energy is smart to expand its renewable energy profile, especially in light of solar's continually increasing cost-effectiveness and its exponential growth path.

The fight between utility companies and distributed solar companies have heated up markedly over the past year. Some major utilities have even started resorting to underhanded tactics, such as influencing congressmen to do their bidding. While most utilities are trying to quash distributed solar, the savvy utility companies are embracing the change. Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK) has been one of the rare few utilities that have actually seen the rise of distributed solar as a huge opportunity.

Duke Energy is currently the largest electricity holding company in the U.S., and has assets all over North and South America. While Duke Energy has a huge reliance on fossil fuels, which has been essential for the vast majority of the its business, the company is slowly making a transition to solar. Unlike most other utilities, Duke Energy is incorporating solar not as a means of meeting federal requirements, but to ensure the company's survival in a rapidly changing energy landscape. In fact, Duke Energy already has more renewable assets than many of the top renewable companies, with a sizable renewables portfolio consisting of around 1.8 GW worth of solar and wind assets. There are few other fossil fuel based utilities doing the same, with NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) being almost the sole exception.

Duke Energy has reaffirmed its commitment to solar by acquiring a majority state in REC Solar, which focuses on distributed commercial installations. Duke Energy is willing to invest up to $225M into REC, with the clear intentions of trying to stake a foothold in the commercial solar sector. REC Solar will operate under Duke Energy Renewables(which is the green arm of Duke Energy) and should benefit tremendously from Duke Energy's financial clout and low costs of capital. As per Duke Energy CEO Allen Bucknam,

"We plan to extend the benefits of clean, distributed energy solutions to previously underserved small and medium-sized businesses," and that "The Duke Energy relationship realizes our strategy to be the one-stop shop for commercial solar by securing a predictable and streamlined customer financing process."

This is what a typical commercial REC Solar install looks like.

(click to enlarge)

Source: REC Solar

The Importance of Maintaining an Early Foothold

The utilities sector has seen little to no change in over a century, which means that sudden industry change likely seems extremely threatening, and even alien to most utilities. This could explain why the majority of utilities have been violently opposed to the proliferation of distributed solar companies such as SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY). Instead of working with these companies, which would likely end up being better for everyone involved, most of these companies are fighting tooth and nail to resist change.

Duke Solar is clearly an anomaly in this sense, not only accepting such change, but actually transitioning its business model to become more solar friendly. The company's majority stake in REC Solar leaves no doubt about the company's renewable ambitions. Not only does REC Solar's business model come in direct conflict with that of Duke Energy's, but it also represents an existential threat to the company's centralized business model. Instead of combating such REC Solar, Duke Energy has gone the infinitely wiser route of acquiring it.

By controlling REC Solar's commercial solar operations, Duke Energy will have a foothold into the promising ditsributed solar sector. Because the vast majority of Duke Energy's business is based upon centralized fossil fuel generation, the acquisition of a distributed solar company seems counterproductive at best. That is, for every distributed solar customer that Duke Energy signs up, that is one less customer for its main centralized business. While this is a no-win situation for Duke Energy, the company is looking at the long-term energy landscape, where distributed generation may very likely replace centralized generation.

Without staking a foothold in the distributed solar sector now, Duke Energy may become obsolete later on. At the relatively small cost of $225M, Duke Energy is setting itself up for future success in an immensely promising market. While $225M is a sizable sum of money for the solar sector, it is merely pocket change for the $60B valuated Duke Energy.

Incredible Synergy

Duke Energy's acquisition of REC Solar should amount to some incredibly synergistic effects, especially in financial and political matters. Despite all the talk about distributed solar's coming dominance, this form of electricity generation currently only amounts to below 1% of total electricity generation, which unfortunately results in a lack of perceived credibility and influence. This is of course where Duke Energy can fill the void, and in return, Duke Energy gets REC Solar's talent and years of solar industry experience.

The distributed solar industry has traditionally suffered from high capital costs, largely due to solar PV's relatively novel technology. While solar PV has been around for 40+ years, the technology has not seen statistically significant adoption until the last decade or so. Because finance companies have had so little to work on in terms of accessing solar PV's stability/reliance, such high capital costs are not at all surprising.

REC Solar's capital costs have been no exception in this regard, which makes its Duke Energy partnership perfect for this situation. Duke Energy Renewables has billions on its balance sheet, which should drastically lower REC Solar's capital costs. Instead of trying to find outside funding for its commercial projects, REC Energy could now go directly to Duke Energy. A lowered cost of capital means that REC Energy would be able to increase its profit margins, expand its commercial operations, or both. This, of course, also benefits Duke Energy.

What makes Duke Energy's acquisition of REC Solar particularly intriguing is if/how Duke Energy will be able to leverage its financial clout to influence politics. For instance, the company's renewable arm has the majority of its solar assets in North Carolina, which unfortunately does not allow for solar leases/PPAs. While traditional distributed solar companies have nowhere near the political clout to significantly alter North Carolina's state policies/laws, Duke Energy has more than enough influence to do so(especially considering the fact that the company is based out of North Carolina). If Duke Energy chose to support the legalization of leases/PPAs in the state, REC Solar would benefit tremendously, which would in turn benefit Duke Energy.

With such a powerful utility heavyweight entering the distributed solar game, it will be interesting to see how Duke Energy deals with policies negatively impacting solar leasing/PPA. On one hand, these policies help Duke Energy's core business of centralized fossil fuel generation, but on the other hand, they would severely limit its distributed REC Solar business. Given Duke Energy's seemingly forward looking nature, it is likely that the company will aid in trying to eliminate such policies, at least in its home state of North Carolina.

Risks and Obstacles

As was previously stated, REC Energy's business comes in directly conflict with Duke Energy's main business of centralized generation. If distributed solar does end up dominating the electricity generation scene, this will prove to be an ingenious acquisition. If such a scenario does not play out though, REC Solar would likely just be taking revenue from Duke Energy's main business, resulting in a zero-sum game. This could even turn out to be negative-sum game considering all the time and effort that would likely be put into REC Solar.

In addition, REC Solar's business primarily deals with the distributed commercial sector, which has struggled to grow over the past few years. Duke Energy may have a harder time than anticipated in growing REC Solar's commercial business due to the numerous problems plaguing the commercial solar sector(i.e. lack of efficiency, standardization, etc). While such problems are possible to overcome, they will nevertheless represent daunting obstacles for Duke Energy's REC Solar acquisition.

Conclusion

Duke Energy is one of the largest energy companies in the world, having over 7 million customers in North America alone. Despite making its fortune on fossil fuels, the company is smart enough to realize that centralized fossil fuel dominance will not last forever. The company's transition into renewables, and more importantly, distributed solar, will prove to be key for the company's future success. With a valuataion of $60B and a P/E ratio of 19, the company still has upside due to its increasing involvement in the immensely promising solar market.

Community solar gardens could expand solar benefits to more Hoosiers but needs virtual net metering

Posted by Laura Arnold / February 14, 2015 / Posted in solar, Uncategorized / No Comments

Virtual metering: Solar gardens allow electricity consumers to invest in panels elsewhere and be credited by their utility.

Solar industry plots cooperative strategy

February 14, 2015

Kathleen McLaughlin

Imagine seeing the price of gas drop 50 percent, then finding out you couldn’t take advantage because of a law that excluded drivers who lease their vehicles or whose fuel tank is on the wrong side.

That’s pretty much the experience of most would-be solar energy users. The price of panels has plummeted in the last few years, but that doesn’t mean everyone who wants solar for their home or business can have it. Only a quarter of all rooftops in the United States are suitable for hosting solar panels, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Even a big, flat, roof open to full sun isn’t going to work if the property owner won’t allow it.

One way around the problem is through so-called community solar gardens. The concept, which is catching on in a few states and in rural Indiana, allows electricity customers to benefit from solar energy without hosting panels on their property. A group of customers or an electric utility will buy a solar array, place it in an ideal location, and tie it into the grid. Customers who own panels, or who subscribe to the utility’s program, can then receive credit on their bills for the energy the garden produces.

The concept, also known as virtual metering, has the potential to dramatically increase solar’s share of energy production, and it represents a huge selling opportunity for the panel-installation industry. But executing the concept requires cooperation from utility companies and state regulators.

At least 24 states allow virtual metering to some extent, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency at the North Carolina Solar Center. In Indiana, the legal authority for retail customers to set up virtual metering with their own equipment is not clear.

In states where virtual metering is under way, a group of condo owners could work with someone who owns a vacant lot or warehouse a few miles away to install solar panels for their benefit, said Laura Ann Arnold, president of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance, which represents solar installers and other renewable-energy businesses. Or, a business could install an array on its property and allow people who live in the area to buy into it.

Rural demand

Rural electric membership cooperatives are leading the charge on community solar in Indiana.

Tipmont REMC, which serves an area between Lafayette and Crawfordsville, launched the first project last fall with 240 panels producing about 100 kilowatts at the co-op headquarters in Linden.

Several more REMCs in northern Indiana are considering them, said Jim Straeter, whose Ag Technologies Inc. installs solar on farms and rural residences.

Rochester-based Ag Technologies saw $2 million in solar-related revenue last year, and Straeter expects that to double this year. He thinks community-solar projects could easily account for a quarter of all his solar business.

“I think that business model is going to develop fairly quickly,” he said.

A rural co-op’s mission is to respond to member needs, and Tipmont’s 22,000 mostly residential members have shown a strong interest in renewable energy, said Corey Willis, membership engagement manager.

Plus, Tipmont’s 100-kilowatt garden, enough to power seven to 15 homes, means the utility, which doesn’t own its own power plants, won’t have to buy as much energy on the open market, Willis said.

“Every kilowatt generated is one less we have to buy,” he said. “In that regard, everybody wins.”

Tipmont REMC is pitching its community solar program as a hedge against rising energy costs. Members can buy a 25-year subscription for $1,250 per panel.

The utility tells its customers to expect monthly billing credits worth $5 per panel and estimates they’ll avoid paying an additional $2,280 for electricity over the 25 years.

Tipmont could have simply installed the panels and kept the benefits of the energy generation for itself, Willis said. Instead, the co-op is passing the benefits to its members, who will receive credit for their solar-generated energy at the full retail price of electricity, which is slightly less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

If customers move within the co-op’s service area, they’ll be able to take the credits with them, Willis said.

Most Hoosiers are served by investor-owned electric utilities, which are overseen by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The two utilities covering central Indiana, Duke Energy and Indianapolis Power & Light Co., have yet to step forward with community solar proposals.

“We believe we first need to address the right policy for customer-owned generation,” Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protegere said.

Investor-owned utilities are supporting a controversial House bill that would allow them to pay lower rates per kilowatt-hour to customers who generate excess, or “net,” energy with their small-scale, on-site systems. Solar advocates believe the bill would be a step back for net metering, but utilities say they need a way to ensure they have enough revenue to support a reliable grid.

IPL spokeswoman Brandi Davis-Handy said the utility is “supportive of the concept” of community solar but that there are “challenges,” including defining the legal structure for it to occur and identifying strategic locations on the grid.

IPL is weighing whether to launch its own community solar program because it would allow for broader participation by customers, including renters, Davis-Handy said.

Indiana Michigan Power, which covers Fort Wayne, Muncie and South Bend, has a pending request to allow customers to buy blocks of energy from solar arrays owned by the utility, IURC spokeswoman Chetrice Mosley said.

The demand for solar in rural areas might come as a surprise, but Straeter, who also owns a chain of farm-equipment dealerships, said the economics of it are even more favorable to farmers than homeowners because the panels can be depreciated for tax purposes.

Ag Technologies has been selling so many of its ground-mounted systems in rural Fulton County that renewable-energy use charted for the first time.

“Renewable was zero. Now it’s slightly above 1 percent,” Straeter said. “That happened in about a year and a half.”

Farmers typically install their arrays near energy-intensive operations like dairy barns or grain driers, but community solar also would allow them to make use of far-flung, untillable ground, Straeter said.

A piece of land that’s not good for farming might be perfect for solar, but often it’s too far from the property owner’s operations to justify the cost of wiring it in, Straeter said. Virtual metering could help overcome that hurdle because wiring doesn’t have to run to the panel’s owners.

Ag Technologies is selling to rural homeowners, too. By urban standards, the typical backyard installation sounds enormous. Straeter’s 3,300-square-foot home, for example, requires about 1,000 square feet of panels. However, it’s heated and cooled with geothermal; homes with less-efficient systems would require an even larger array of panels.

But many a house in the countryside is surrounded by land that’s not in the hands of the homeowner, Straeter said. “Customers have not gone ahead with solar for that reason.” Again, community solar gives Straeter a way to overcome a common objection to the sale.

Legal question

For the community solar market to really take off, Indiana would have to allow customers to set up their own arrays—without a utility’s involvement, Arnold said.

The legality of that type of arrangement remains untested in Indiana, Mosley at the IURC said. In Indiana, utilities are granted exclusive territories, and the question is whether panel owners who set up virtual metering are acting like utilities, thus impinging on their territory.

Some might argue that is the case because the panel owners are selling energy to a group of retail customers, Mosley said. Others would say solar gardens don’t conflict with utilities because they operate under contractual arrangements among specific customers, not selling energy to the public at large, she said.

So far, no one with deep enough pockets has pressed the legal case for virtual metering, Arnold said. “We’re not close to being there.”•

Is community or shared solar happening in your state? What are the state barriers?

Posted by Laura Arnold / February 13, 2015 / Posted in solar / No Comments

Why Dept of Energy is going big on community shared solar

DOE's SunShot initiative awarded $14 million to develop business models for shared solar

By Herman K. Trabish | February 12, 2015

ew solar sector is emerging, a sector so new that its name — community shared solar — has not yet been precisely defined.

That is why the Department of Energy (DOE) SunShot Initiative just gave $14 million to 15 awardees to define what community shared solar is, identify what business models will work, and explain how it will make solar more accessible and affordable. Only one thing is now clear.

“There is no dispute that installing solar on a roof is far less economically efficient than putting 5,000 panels in an open field in 60 days and selling it to 1,000 customers,” said Paul Spencer, founder and president of Clean Energy Collective, the biggest U.S. community solar developer. “There is no comparison as to the capital efficiency of those two solutions.”

In terms of accessibility, explained SunShot Director Minh Le, a new analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory now in peer-review suggests that “between 50% and 75% of households and just over 50% of businesses are unsuitable to host PV systems on their roofs because of shade, orientation, structural factors, or ownership issues.” The new sector will bring solar to them.

“between 50% and 75% of households and just over 50% of businesses are unsuitable to host PV systems on their roofs because of shade, orientation, structural factors, or ownership issues.”

As for affordability, community shared solar can reduce solar costs in two ways and both are attracting significant utility interest.

“Utility participation is going to be transformational,” Le said. “The perceived resistance to solar from utilities is really not there when you talk about aggregating consumers on larger projects to get economies of scale and siting near substations or distribution feeders to reduce interconnection issues.”

DOE gets into community shared solar

DOE’s role in the current expansion began in 2012 with its report, "Guide to Community Shared Solar: Utility, Private, and Nonprot Project Development," Le said. The Guide outlined business models, challenges, and opportunities. It led to 2013’s “Community Shared Solar: Getting to Scale" workshop.

The workshop developed DOE’s expansive definition that includes a range of ownership concepts and benefit allocations. Interest from utilities, the solar industry, and other stakeholders in breaking down barriers to community shared solar led to SunShot’s Solar Market Pathways program.

The current round of Market Pathways funding awarded the Solar Electric Power Association $705,830 to study “the intersection of community solar business models and consumer demographics” and produce “more standardized, streamlined and cost-effective business models.”

“One of our first tasks,” explained SEPA Senior Research Manager Becky Campbell, “will be to find some level of consensus about how these programs are defined.”

Campbell hopes SEPA’s survey and research will develop individual business models with unique names so “we can not only be on the same page when discussing community solar, but we can take it one step further and start to use common terminology to describe the traits of each program model.”

The commercial business models

CEC is the only private sector community solar developer offering both established business models, according to Spencer.

In one, customers own panels. “The customer makes a down payment on the panel at the front end of the transaction, with cash or financing, and owns the asset,” Spencer explained. “The customer gets 100% of the power being sold to the utility in the form of a dollar amount credited to their utility bill for the production of the solar-generated electricity produced by the customer’s panels in the array.”

The dollar amount credited is slightly less than the amount earned by the total output of the panels owned because a small percentage goes into a CEC-administered escrow account to cover operations and maintenance and other expenses.

CEC’s Remote Meter proprietary billing software is merged into the local utility’s billing system. It automatically integrates the credits earned by the solar with the customer’s utility bill so that the customer gets one utility bill.

The panel investment can eventually pay for itself, creating ownership equity. CEC earns its money by selling the array’s panels at a slight mark-up from cost.

“The second model, a rental model, is more complicated to understand but less complicated for us to do, which is why other companies are doing it,” Spencer said.

CEC calls its rental model SolarPerks. Other players like SunShare and SunEdison also use it. It provides a net utility bill savings proportional to the amount of kilowatt-hours the subscriber commits to paying for but the subscriber has no upfront cost and earns no ownership equity. A residential customer gets a guaranteed 5% savings while commercial customers can save up to 10% or more.

The subscriber deals with two bills. The utility bill shows the dollar amount of the credit for 100% of the solar kilowatt-hours to which a residential subscriber commits. CEC debits that subscriber’s bank account for 95% of the credit.

“Though there is a monthly savings, the subscriber has no ownership,” Spencer stressed. “It appeals to a different public and works differently, but still saves money.”

Utilities have been less successful with the ownership model than with the rental model unless, like CEC, they offer some form of loan or on-bill financing to help customers with upfront costs.

“If you finance and blur the lines, the first model ends up looking a lot like the second model until the panels are paid off,” Spencer said. “But the market definitely likes the zero-down option and since it supports more solar, it produces more environmental benefits.”

DOE awards

CEC won a $700,000 SunShot Initiative award last fall to develop and implement the National Community Solar Platform (NCSP). It is intended to help developers, EPCs, utilities, and community solar organizers avoid the complexities that CEC had to resolve with securities law, tax law, electronic on-bill crediting solutions, state and federal law, and land use issues to become the leading U.S. community solar developer.

Expected to launch by spring 2016, the platform will provide web-based access to information and market-proven tools that will make community solar development “easier, cheaper, faster, and widely scalable.”

A Market Pathways award of $2,430,682 went to Dominion Virginia/Virginia Electric and Power to lead a team of representatives from state government, research institutions, environmental organizations, local communities, and solar businesses in developing business models for utility-administered solar.

Given the lethargy of Virginia’s solar market, Dominion Virginia’s interest is groundbreaking. And given that a similar coalition of stakeholders teamedwith Duke Energy in nearby South Carolina to prepare the ground for what may be a coming solar market explosion there, the progress of Dominion Virginia’s team will be worth watching.

Market Pathways awarded $1,238,308 to the Cook County Department of Environmental Control’s Chicago project to identify business models that most benefit seniors, multi-unit housing tenants, and low-income customers. “By having the solar project in the community instead of buying solar generated electricity from a distant utility-scale project, it also offers the opportunity for local economic development,” Minh said.

How big can community shared solar get?

When world-leading solar developer First Solar became “a minority yet significant owner in CEC” late last year, Spencer said, the companies calculated that if only about a quarter of all roofs are suitable for solar and 40% of those are occupied by renters, the market for community solar is about seven times as big as that for rooftop solar.

“We share First Solar’s enthusiasm about the opportunity,” Minh said. “Our projection is that between 20015 and 2020 there will be a cumulative $6 billion to $12 billion invested in the community shared solar space – but that is an estimate made in the very early days of what could be a very exciting market.”

Kokomo Tribune: Dark days ahead for solar energy

Posted by Laura Arnold / February 11, 2015 / Posted in 2015 Indiana General Assembly, solar, Uncategorized / No Comments

Solar Farm 01.jpg

Posted: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:00 am

http://www.kokomotribune.com/news/dark-days-ahead-for-solar-energy/article_0ffd1d3e-b164-11e4-88f3-ff047f536a28.html

By George Myers

Posted on Feb 11, 2015

by George Myers

Two months ago, local renewable energy advocates Tom McKinney and Rick Ortman were excited about Indiana's solar energy future.

Now, all they have are questions about a piece of legislation that may eliminate the benefits of owning small-scale solar installations.

That legislation – House Bill 1320 – is authored by House Utilities and Energy Committee Chairman Eric Koch, R-Bedford, and would change the way solar panel owners are credited for the energy they produce.

Under the current system of net metering, owners of small-scale solar installations are required to pay only for the net amount of energy they consume, and if owners produce more energy than they use, they are then credited at the retail price of electricity. The consumer also pays a fee for connection to the electrical grid.

For instance, if a net metering consumer is billed 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, their account will be credited the same amount for any excess energy sent back into the electric grid.

If HB 1320 -- which has been referred to the House Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee -- becomes law, it will allow utilities like Duke Energy to set additional charges and buy energy at wholesale prices, potentially lowering the amount of credits received by up to 70 percent.

As the owner of Kokomo’s Ortland Drilling and Water Services, Ortland was prepared to purchase and install a “sizeable” number of solar panels before the bill was introduced, he said.

Once he read the bill, the move no longer seemed feasible.

“If they pass the law, we can’t have the panels long enough for it to pay out,” said Ortman. “It would take too many years to pay this off, and we aren’t going to make that investment.”

McKinney, who owns 12 30-foot solar panels across two acres of his Kempton property, sees the legislation as punishing those who hope to make sensible environmental decisions.

“If you plan for a large or small system, this bill will set you back, and you’ve made a big investment to do the right thing,” McKinney said. “Koch said he wants to promote net metering and this is how to do it. His proposal is going to do the exact opposite.”

Ortman was equally baffled by Koch’s decision.

“We were helping to eliminate the carbon footprint for this part of the country, but that doesn’t seem to hold any water,” Ortman said.

McKinney also expects the bill to halt the renewable energy momentum Indiana had recently gained, he said, which will only contribute to a significant increase in energy costs.

Of the 523 people who would be “grandfathered” in under their current deals, meaning their credits will remain at retail price, more than 300 were added since 2011.

If the bill kills the excitement and growth around renewable energy, it is inevitable that energy costs will increase significantly, said McKinney, who will meet the “grandfather” guidelines.

Renewable electricity production from wind and solar generation grew more than 30 percent in Indiana from 2011 to 2013, according to the Indiana Energy Association.

“What will it do to all the small businesses if power costs increases 20 or 30 percent?” McKinney asked. “If I owned a company, I would be looking at solar or wind to help offset energy costs, but people may not do that now.”

Proponents of the bill argue that current net metering agreements harm energy consumers who don't have access to solar energy, because the costs of traditional energy grid maintenance and other fixed costs are disproportionately shifted onto non-solar consumers.

“Solar is growing in popularity, and we would like to see that grow,” said IEA spokesman Dave Arland. “But we need to be cognizant of the costs to do this. People who don’t have solar can’t pay for those who do.”

The majority of solar consumers are often also the wealthiest, and their lack of financial contribution puts the burden on those who can’t afford it, Arland said.

McKinley disagreed, saying his solar panels help provide low-cost energy to a large percentage of his neighbors and the surrounding community.

“I am helping power facilities at peak times,” McKinney said. “When people are really sucking the juice down during the summer and winter, they are taking my power. During all those peak months, I am taking care of their customers and my neighbors with my solar energy farm.

“It is not fair for them to put out literature saying I am not paying my fair share, because we are all in this together,” he added.

Chris Rohaly of Green Alternatives, a Kokomo-based renewable energy installation company, called Arland’s claims “patently false.”

“They have made a lot of claims about solar users shifting the financial burden to people who don’t use solar, but really it looks like they are using that to raise the base rate,” Rohaly said. “We’ve requested to see any analysis from the authors of the bill. I have bills from solar users that are already paying a base infrastructure cost. They are already paying fees for the privilege of having the service at their houses.”

Duke Energy's net metering customers are required to pay a monthly fee to possess their meter, regardless of energy usage, according to Duke Energy spokesman Brandon Hill.

The bill will also introduce a solar panel and wind energy leasing option, giving consumers the option of installing multiple solar panels on their property for a fixed rate.

“This bill will introduce a better way for people to have access to solar energy through the option of leasing,” Arland said. “Today, you have to purchase solar panels and connect them to the grid, which can cost as much as $15,000 or $20,000. Leasing allows you to spread the cost over several years.”

Ortman, who doesn’t expect anything but the current net metering system to motivate solar panel installation, sees the leasing option as a non-factor.

“Whether we finance the installation or someone else does, it is all about what the payback is,” Ortman said. “You are still going to have that lost revenue. It is all about the ultimate savings in our electrical usage.”

In addition to leasing, Arland also focused on the bill’s “right to know” standards, which will provide consumers with all the necessary information related to the finer points of the bill’s pricing adjustments.

“We make sure that in the process of opening this up more consumers are well informed about the agreement,” Arland said. “As doors open, you have to make sure that people understand all the ingredients that are going into this bill.”

Rohaly knows all he needs to know, he said.

“This is like extending the monopoly for utility companies without coming out and saying it,” Rohaly said. “They are making their option the only attractive one, and that provides an unfair advantage. It is truly restricting choice for all consumers.”

Download a text version of this article HERE>

Kokomo Tribune_Dark days ahead for solar energy

Tim Cook: Apple to build $850 million solar farm; Project will add 130 MWs; Who will be next?

Posted by Laura Arnold / February 10, 2015 / Posted in solar, Uncategorized / No Comments

GTY 455064918 I FIN CGO USA CA

Jessica Guynn, USATODAY 4:46 p.m. EST February 10, 2015

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/10/apple-tim-cook-goldman-sachs/23174691/

SAN FRANCISCO — By any measure, it was an epic day for Tim Cook.

On Tuesday he was sitting on stage at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in San Francisco being interviewed by Goldman Sachs president Gary D. Cohn when Apple became the first company to close at more than $700 billion in market value on Tuesday.

"You will always remember exactly where you were," Cohn said to Cook.

Cook made other headlines at the conference.

He announced that Apple had formed a partnership with First Solar to build an $848 million, 1,300-acre solar farm in Monterey County to power its headquarters, data center in Newark, Calif., all Apple offices and 52 Apple stores in California.

The farm will result in significant energy cost savings for Apple, Cook said.

"We know at Apple that climate change is real. Our view is that the time for talk is past and the time for action is now," Cook said.

The solar project is part of the California Flats project on Hearst's 73,000-acre Jack Ranch in Monterey County and may be one of the largest ever built for a commercial user. It will add 130 megawatts of new solar power to California, enough to power about 50,000 California homes.

The announcement was praised by Greenpeace.

"It's one thing to talk about being 100% renewably powered, but it's quite another thing to make good on that commitment with the incredible speed and integrity that Apple has shown in the past two years," Greenpeace Senior IT Sector Analyst Gary Cook said in a statement. "Apple still has work to do to reduce its environmental footprint, but other Fortune 500 CEOs would be well served to make a study of Tim Cook, whose actions show that he intends to take Apple full-speed ahead toward renewable energy with the urgency that our climate crisis demands."

The move toward solar comes as Cook puts his imprint on the company famous for being founded and run by the late Steve Jobs.

The socially conscious Cook has set himself apart from Jobs by focusing on making smart business decisions that are also good for the environment and for the advancement of society.

While on stage, Cook noted the lack of women in the audience at the financial conference.

"I see too many men in this audience," Cook said. "There needs to be a lot more women and diversity."

The technology giant is coming off a record-breaking fourth quarter fueled by stunning demand for the first larger-display iPhones.

And Apple, already the world's most valuable company, became the first company to close at more than $700 billion in market value on Tuesday.

The success has thrust Tim Cook into an even brighter spotlight.

Once doubted as a successor to Jobs, Cook has emerged as Apple's most valuable player.

The question now: Can Apple keep up the growth it achieved last quarter?

Apple sold 74.5 million iPhones in the quarter, a jump from the 33.8 million it sold in the year-ago period.

In the fourth quarter, Apple commanded 93% of the profit in the handset industry, according to a report from investment firm Canaccord Genuity.

Apple's revenue jumped 30% in the fourth quarter. Its net profit rose 38% to $18 billion.