Xcel Drops PV Rebates!

Edit:
The rebates have been restored after a 5 week moratorium.   (Bad move, Xcel, sudden moves like lifting the rebate can kill an entire industry overnight)

Original post:

This is critical to green residential design in Colorado.

An email from COSEIA:

URGENT: Xcel has suspended its solar program & the market is now 100% frozen. Can you help spread the word about this asap? Feel free to forward (or customize) the following email... Neal --- Clean energy is under attack. We urgently need your help.  Last week Xcel Energy suspended its solar program, destabilizing the market for clean energy.  This move has effectively frozen solar sales while customers wait for a possible program restart - with a devastating impact on small businesses and the Colorado economy. We can't let a monopoly choke off competition and curtail clean energy.  That's why we need your help.  Mark your calendar: join the Rally for Clean Energy Jobs at the state capitol (west steps) in Denver THIS FRIDAY, 2/25 at 12noon.  We need to see you there to help fight back against Xcel's outrageous activities - and to send a clear message that a monopoly shouldn't be allowed to control the fate of Colorado's clean energy industries and put thousands of jobs at risk. Can you help spread the word about this event?  THANKS! Here's some background on this important issue - and why Xcel's actions are so concerning: - Colorado voters have sent a clear message that they want to increase clean energy and help promote economic development. Building on the success of Amendment 37, there are now 5,300 solar jobs and more than 400 solar businesses in Colorado. Colorado is now the #2 state in the U.S. for solar jobs per capita.  - Xcel Energy is using its monopoly to disrupt the market for clean energy and choke off competition. Xcel is now the 2nd major utility to suspend its solar program. Black Hills Energy in Pueblo suspended its solar program in October, which led to a 90% decrease in solar sales and significant job losses while customers wait for incentives to return. The Colorado economy can't afford a devastating similar crash statewide. An estimated 2,000-3,000 Colorado jobs will be lost by the end of the year unless there is a rapid restart to the state's successful solar programs. - Every industry needs a stable marketplace to compete. Xcel's Solar*Rewards program was on schedule, slowly ratcheting down incentives as solar costs decreased. Incentives were reduced nearly 50% during the past two years as solar electric costs decreased by 40-50% during the same period. The program has been working. The key was that program changes were predictable, incremental and transparent so consumers and businesses could react.  - Xcel Energy administering its own solar program is a conflict of interest. As a monopoly utility, Xcel has a financial stake in disrupting and destabilizing the clean energy marketplace. A monopoly shouldn't be allowed to pull the rug out from under Colorado's small businesses and put thousands of jobs at risk. - Xcel is exhibiting a blatant double-standard. If Xcel was forced to change its business model in less than 24 hours without advanced notice or due process it would be crying foul to policymakers and the public about the injustice. - Colorado needs an independent 3rd party administrator to oversee its solar program. Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy have demonstrated that they are either incapable or unwilling to ensure a stable marketplace for healthy competition. That's why other states have implemented an independent solar program administrator to avoid these conflicts of interest. Colorado should too. - The Public Utilities Commission should deny efforts to gut clean energy programs. The PUC should seek to restart Xcel's and Black Hills' solar programs quickly, before any more economic damage is done, and begin a fair and transparent stakeholder process to ensure stable marketplace.   Attend the Rally for Clean Energy Jobs this Friday, February 25 at 12pm, at the Colorado State Capitol building, (west steps) and show your support for clean energy in Colorado and for future generations. Please forward this email to your friends!  Best regards, Neal Lurie Executive Director, COSEIA

Smart Grid City Update

Well, unfortunately, Xcel and the PUC have really bungled the potentially exciting deployment of the Smart Grid City prototype in Boulder.

The whole business model for Smart Grid in Colorado is strange because it's a monopoly trying to save it's customers money.
The PUC tries to regulate against Xcel ripping off their customers, but they have almost no directive to promote investment now if it saves money in the future. Add to that some customer resistance to smart metering because it is viewed as an invasion of privacy, and you get a difficult if not impossible implementation.

Why do we care so much about the Smart Grid? Because if TRUE electrical costs could be accurately accounted for and allocated, a residential solar photovoltaic system can be shown to be a better investment than it currently is. We are firm believers in the theory that many small investments in renewables and efficiency can make faster and more nimble improvements in the US's overall energy problems. Big ideas and large projects take much longer to implement, because they are big. The large amount of capital required slows down the process too much, even if the ROI is significantly better than small projects.

If your home-based PV system gives you a return of 5%-15% on your money, millions of homeowners will quickly enter the green energy market as investors. Even if they have zero cash, they can partner with a 3rd party such as SunRun to get a system installed.

We have lots of politically conservative friends who even think PV is a good investment.

Although we were hoping that the Smart Grid could reduce PV system size, PV system cost has been dropping steadily, so this good news takes the sting out of Xcel's big fumble.

More Solar Access in Denver

Chris Kennel, a thoughtful resident of Southeast Denver, recently submitted his thoughts to Doug Linkhart on the solar access issue:

"At the Thursday Nov. 19 council meeting I spoke with some advocates of solar access because I plan to install a photoelectric array on my roof and am curious about their ideas. Every solar access advocate I spoke with seemed well-meaning, but I didn't find that any of them had thoroughly considered the implications of their plans. That is why I have chosen to write this letter to you.

The four types of solar access that I heard the solar access advocates describe were:

1) passive solar (sunlight entering windows of their homes)
2) solar hot water panels
3) gardening
4) solar electric (photovoltaic) panels

Each of these solar uses functions differently at different times of the year and therefore has different requirements in terms of access to the sun. This means that a one size fits all approach would either not address each area appropriately or be totally overkill for some areas.

Lets look at each area, starting with the most restrictive one: passive solar. Passive solar, used for heating and lighting is most beneficial when the sun is low in the sky in the winter. In the summer, passive solar is unwanted since it adversely affects indoor comfort and raises the cooling costs of a home. If people want direct sunlight in their first story windows during the winter months, then it
would preclude the design of most of our existing city blocks. In the morning during the winter months, the sun is so low in the sky that an object 2 feet high will cast a shadow 10 feet long at 8 am in the morning. At noon, when the sun is highest, the same shadow would be created by an object that's about 5 feet tall. This means that if someone has a window on their first floor, the roof or gable of neighboring single story house that's 10 feet away to the south would very likely shade its
neighbor to the north. To get unobstructed winter light into a house at noon would require the neighbor's house to be located at least 20 feet away if it's a single story. For morning light, the neighbor would have to be about 40 feet away, and this gets even larger if the southern neighbor's home is a two story.

The second most restrictive solar access issue is rooftop solar hot water panels since these are often used for winter heating. For solar panels, the sun is most effective between 10 am and 2 pm. Two single story houses would be fine close to each other as long as the southern neighbor doesn't have a gable facing the north neighbor. If the southern neighbor has a gable or a second story it would
have to be about 26 feet away from its single story neighbor to avoid shading the rooftop panels during part or all of the 10 am to 2 pm timeframe. If the southern neighbor has a two story gable roof facing the north then it would have to be about 40 feet away.

The third most restrictive solar access issue is gardening. This activity usually happens during the summer months when the sun is higher in the sky, and most sun-loving plants like tomatoes require about 8 hours of sunlight per day to thrive. A single story house would cast a 15 foot shadow and a 2 story house would cast a 25 foot shadow during parts of this timeframe. For gables facing north add another 7 feet to these numbers. People with large lots should be fine, but narrow lots would
receive too much shade for the most sun-loving plants. People with narrow lots could grow plants that tolerate partial shade since from 10 am to 2 pm the shadows from the worst case scenario, a two story house with gable would only cast a 14 foot long shadow.

The most flexible solar access issue is photovoltaic panels. These panels function most effectively in the summer months when the sun is more direct and intense. During the winter months, their output is substantially reduced, so winter solar access shouldn't be over prioritized. Photovoltaics function best from 10 am to 2 pm, and it's unlikely that even a two story neighbor would shade the roof of a single story house to the north during this timeframe in the summer. The more likely
source of shading is from a chimney on the homeowner's own house or a tree. Photovoltaic panels have a weakness in that if any part of a single panel gets shaded, it knocks out the entire panel and in many cases the entire array or branch circuit. Even a leafless deciduous tree in the winter can cast enough of a shadow to knock out a photovoltaic panel. So if photovoltaic panels are given some special status with regard to solar access then it may result in severe tree pruning and even removal, especially to the city's larger and older trees.

Since trees have many benefits, it seems important to exempt them from any rules regarding solar access. Otherwise neighbors will be trying to trim the trees that other neighbors or the city (via parks and greenbelts) own. Even at my house I have some trees that cast shadows over 100 feet long during the winter months, and my trees are only medium sized. I live in a suburban neighborhood so these trees don't affect my neighbors much, but medium sized and larger trees in an urban neighborhood could conceivably cast shadows across four or more lots.

Although solar access sounds nice in theory, creating solar access rules in excess of our current bulk planes is certain to cause a lot of problems. For the group of of Denver residents who place a premium on solar access (and I am one of them), the best and easiest solution is to choose a site that has a park, street, drainage ditch, or other form of undeveloped open space to the south. A second option is to buy a house that's located on the northern most part of its lot.

Not all homes in Denver are equal in many regards, and solar access shouldn't be viewed as a right but rather as a feature. Although I might like my suburban house to be within 5 blocks of a light rail station, a park as good as Washington Park, a bike path, stream, and an excellent coffee house, I can't expect the city to give me all these things. Solar access is similar. Solar access is a function of location, topography, and the direction a home is pointed. As such it has value to some people, but it cannot be equal throughout all of Denver.

For people who do not want to move to a home that has good solar access, there are alternatives. Instead of photovoltaic panels, they can buy renewable power through Xcel energy's wind source program. People who want fresh, local produce can join a CSA (community supported agriculture), participate in a community garden, or visit the farmers' markets instead of planting their own gardens. If someone suffers from SAD (seasonal affective disorder) in the winter they can buy a light therapy box (my wife and I have one and it works great) instead of relying on passive solar light.
Lastly, people who want to reduce their heating costs can better winterize their homes as an alternative to using solar hot water panels or passive solar designs. Better winterization will also make a house more comfortable and energy efficient in the summer. All of these are good options for people who do not have the guaranteed solar access they wish for. It's likely that they've chosen where they live due to other redeeming factors.

Thank you also for your hard work on the rezoning project.

Sincerely,
Chris Kennel"

Lots of good common sense from Chris.

Note: As Douglas Farr and myself have been advocating, the best place for your photovoltaic system is on a two story garage on the alley. Xcel energy is already trimming the trees back there to protect the power lines. The most likely source of shade will then be a pine tree to the south. Try to get an agreement with that neighbor to allow you to prune that tree as required. If he won't grant permission for free, offer some money for a solar easement. You'll eventually earn all that money back and more.

Cheap Photovoltaics Mean Easy Zero Energy Homes

Let's see, there are at least two photovoltaic manufacturers in Colorado that promise $1.00/watt thin film PV panels "soon". If you add maybe $4.00/watt for installation, and subtract the rebates, which are at least $4.50/watt, it means your PV investment will be almost free, and it wipes out your electricity bill of $50-$150/month.

By any measure, this is a good investment. Think about it for a minute, and you'll conclude that your new zero energy home should be ALL ELECTRIC. It goes against today's conventional wisdom, but things are changing fast. The reason is simply that there is currently no method for a residential building to make natural gas and put it "back on the grid". In the summer, you'll have excess electricity production, but Xcel pays you retail for it. You can't do that with solar thermal either.

It can also be shown that Zero Energy homes with no solar thermal or natural gas appliances are simpler and cheaper to construct, so it's win-win all around.