CNBC — Warren Buffett is looking for investment opportunities in renewable energy. "We have got a big appetite for wind or solar," Buffett said Saturday at Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholders meeting.
"If someone walks in with a solar project tomorrow and it takes a billion dollars or three billion dollars, we're ready to do it," he said. "The more there is the better." Buffett said Berkshire is in a good position to compete with electric utilties companies since the conglomerate can take better advantage of tax incentives for alternative energy projects. Berkshire Hathaway Energy already sells wind-generated electricity in Iowa. In a March presentation, the firm said captial expenditure forecasts for the next two years have increased $4.6 billion from the prior year, primarily due to wind and solar energy projects. Earlier during Saturday's shareholder meeting, Buffett said he expects coal to decline as a percentage of railroad revenues. "If you're tied to coal, then you've got problems," he said. Berkshire also owns the Burlington Northern railroad company. Together with Berkshire Hathaway Energy, the two units accounted for a third of Berkshire's after-tax operating earnings in 2016, according to the latest shareholder letter.
0 Comments
Powur is transforming the world of lead generation in the solar market.
HATCH — Instead of each solar company going after costly and hard to find leads on their own, Powur is directing those companies to its international team of agents who work to create high quality leads. Powur likens their disruption in the market to the Uber model. In looking at how they motivate, engage, and educate their sales team, it resembles the direct sales industry. The numbers indicate that it's working. The average cost to acquire a lead in the solar market is $3,000. By using Powur, companies can reduce that cost to $1,400 per lead. The solar market is growing like wildfire and Powur is taking advantage of that, recording their biggest month of revenue yet in March. Their revenue comes from training fees and costs paid by the Advisors that work for them, and from the solar companies who pay a percentage for leads and solar installations. The company is currently raising capital through a crowdfunding effort on Wefunder, and already has 236 investors representing more than $633,000. An Aeroflot plane bound for Bangkok encountered severe turbulence Monday that left 27 of its passengers injured, some with broken bones.
CBS — The airline confirmed the incident was the result of clear-air turbulence, the most difficult type to detect. New research suggests transatlantic turbulence could become up to three times worse in the coming decades. For nervous fliers, nothing about this research is reassuring. Clear-air turbulence strikes without warning and, because of climate change, is only going to get worse, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann. The sudden drop on the Aeroflot plane came without warning and anyone not strapped down was shot toward the ceiling, then slammed against the aircraft floor. Video of the aftermath shows the plane scattered with debris. Unlike conventional turbulence that occurs when planes fly near weather systems, clear-air turbulence happens without the presence of clouds. Making it nearly impossible for pilots to detect, until it's too late. Dr. Paul Williams is an atmospheric scientist at the University of Reading in England. "We've calculated that the amount of severe turbulence which is strong enough to hospitalize people could double or even as much as triple by the end of this century on transatlantic flight routes because of climate change," Williams said. According to researchers, rising carbon dioxide levels could destabilize the fast moving air \currents of the transatlantic jet stream, an area that currently sees up to 3,000 flights each day. They predict a 149 percent spike in severe air turbulence, along with longer travel times, increased delays and, inevitably, higher ticket prices. "It's very distressing for pilots precisely because they have no indication or very little indication that the turbulence is sitting out there and that the plane is just about to hit it," Williams said. Aerospace engineer Pat Anderson took Strassmann inside a flight simulator to demonstrate different levels of turbulence from the pilot's perspective. When asked to describe "extreme" turbulence, Anderson said, "When I think you get to a point where you say extreme, you're worried about being in a situation where the air plane is in jeopardy." Modern airliners are designed to withstand all kinds of turbulence, but experts warn that even airplanes have a breaking point. "Well the integrity of the plane is something that's going to have to be checked," Anderson said. "Airplanes don't have infinite lives, they have some limit and if we see more turbulence that's going to be drawn in closer." Turbulence already presents the greatest safety risk for the traveling public. In 2016, the FAA investigated 44 turbulence-related injuries, more than double the amount from the year before. MASHABLE — Lawmakers in Georgia's capital city approved a measure to get all of Atlanta's electricity supplies from renewable sources, including wind and solar power, by 2035. The resolution commits city officials to developing a plan to make that happen. "We know that moving to clean energy will create good jobs, clean up our air and water, and lower our residents' utility bills," Kwanza Hall, the city council member who introduced the resolution, said in a statement this week. He likened today's fossil fuel-powered grid to outdated landline phones in the age of smartphones. "We have to set an ambitious goal or we're never going to get there," said Hall, who is also a Democratic candidate for mayor. Atlanta is now the 27th U.S. city to pledge a 100-percent clean energy goal, the Sierra Club said. In a related initiative, mayors from about two dozen cities — including Miami Beach, Salt Lake City, and San Diego — have also pledged support for a community-wide transition away from fossil fuels. City and state leaders have long outpaced the federal government when it comes to adopting policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, boosting energy efficiency, and preparing for rising sea levels, frequent heat waves, and other effects of climate change. In March, Trump signed an executive order to begin unraveling many of the Obama administration's climate efforts, including the landmark Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash carbon emissions from U.S. power plants. Last week, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency started to wipe information about human-driven climate change from its website. In response to such moves, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets. At the March for Science on April 22 and the People's Climate March on April 29, demonstrators in U.S. and global cities called for ambitious action on climate change. Atlanta officials were "answering the call" of protesters this week when they adopted the clean energy resolution, said Ted Terry, director of the Sierra Club's Georgia chapter. "Cities like Atlanta must lead the way in confronting the threat of climate change and accelerating the transition to 100 percent clean energy," he said in a news release. "Today's commitment will inspire bold, ambitious leadership from cities throughout the United States and pave the way for a healthier and stronger Atlanta." People march to the White House for the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., April 29, 2017.
U.S. policymakers also responded to the protest movements. Last week, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, and Ed Markey introduced a bill to get 100 clean energy nationwide by 2050. The legislation — which has little chance of becoming law — would halt new fossil fuel infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. It would also direct hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars each year for clean energy projects, primarily within communities of color and low-income areas. Bill McKibben, co-founder of the grassroots environmental group 350.org, acknowledged the bill's uphill battle in Congress, but said "it will change the [energy] debate in fundamental ways." "100 is an important number," he added. THE ECONOMICS OF ENERGY GENERATION ARE CHANGING; MORE METRICS FAVOR SOLAR, WIND It’s not always a simple task to compare the value of electricity generation resources. Coal, natural gas, solar, wind, and so on have different strengths and weaknesses, so when it comes time to build or replace energy capacity, economists look at the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), which divides the total cost of an installation or plant by the kilowatt-hours it produces over its lifetime. ARS TECHNICA — While private financial firms like Lazard calculate their own LCOE figures, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) also puts together an annual report projecting the LCOE for various generation resources. The report, released this month, looks at the cost of generation resources if they were to come online in 2019, 2022, and 2040. The latest numbers seem to confirm trends that have borne out recently in energy markets—overall, some renewables are getting more attractive, others are struggling, and coal has definitely been unseated as king. The EIA calculated LCOE for generation resources in 22 regions in the US and then took the simple average of those regions for a national number. Once federal tax credits and energy regulations are factored in, a rough estimate of cost per unit of energy produced is possible. In general, the lower your LCOE, the better, because it usually means you’re getting more kWh for your dollar. (There are exceptions, though. If the LCOE analysis is being applied to, say, a solar installation on a building, investing in efficiency upgrades for your building before installing a solar array is undoubtedly the right move, even though it will increase your cost marginally and reduce the amount of kWh you need. More on the limitations of the LCOE are below.) Cost of energy 101 The EIA's 2017 projections (PDF) show how pricey each kind of energy will be for plants that go online in 2019, 2022, and 2040. EIA’s 2019 analysis is limited, because plants that will be deployed by then are already underway. Coal plants, offshore wind, geothermal energy, and nuclear power are not represented in the 2019 data. Because builders can still take advantage of federal tax credits, onshore wind, and solar photovoltaic (PV) resources are dirt cheap, at $39.30/MWh and $58.80/MWh respectively. The more interesting figures are found for 2022 and beyond. Five years in the future, the EIA thinks the most expensive energy resources will include:
The EIA only found LCOE numbers for coal plants with some degree of carbon capture because of recent updates to the Clean Air Act which require plants to meet specific CO2 emission standards. Coal plants that can't meet those emissions standards can't be built currently. On the other hand, electricity generation resources that will be on the cheaper end when they go into service in 2022 include:
Geothermal was the cheapest of all resources in the EIA's analysis after factoring in tax credits that are expected to extend until 2022. Advanced nuclear plants being deployed in 2022 hit squarely between the low end and the high end, at $99.1 per MWh. Fast forward to 2040, and the EIA thinks that prices aren't going to change much from the 2022 projections. There are a few exceptions, of course. Some of the energy that gets cheaper includes: Coal with any amount of carbon capture drops by $10 to $20 per MWh due to falling capital costs (meaning perhaps it will get easier and cheaper to build carbon removal technology). Nuclear projects, whose cost decreases $10 per MWh because of a considerable decrease in capital costs, despite the EIA projecting that variable costs for nuclear energy, including fuel, will go up. Offshore wind also decreases by $20 per MWh due to falling capital costs—a trend we’re already seeing today as the cost to install offshore wind facilities is getting cheaper and cheaper with expertise and investment developed in Europe, where offshore wind is more prevalent. On the other hand, the cost of geothermal energy increases by about $10/MWh due to an increase in fixed maintenance costs. But this is hardly the whole story But, of course, comparing electricity-generation resources is not quite that simple if you want the most compelling and full story on which resources are better deployed in any given region of the US. The EIA says that looking at the LCOE alone is an imperfect way to study energy-generating plants because it doesn’t directly compare the cost of each kilowatt-hour from a new plant with the cost of kilowatt-hours being displaced. This comparison, found in what's called the Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy, or LACE, can help economists and analysts make decisions if, say, a resource like solar can only operate during the day or a resource like wind sees fluctuations based on the seasons. A solar installation's usefulness is subject to the availability of sunlight in a given region and might not be able to compete with a more reliable natural gas plant, but solar electricity can also be less expensive to produce during the middle of a hot August day than electricity from a fossil fuel-burning peaker plant that requires a startup period and cooling. If a resource is displacing power that’s more expensive to run when that first resource would run, that will be reflected in a LACE analysis. The EIA said it looked at 22 different regions in the US and drew up LACE values for each type of energy by comparing that generation project with a new generation project that would be most likely to be built given the existing energy mix in that region. Once LACE values are drawn up, the EIA says it’s instructive to compare the LACE and the LCOE of a project. If the avoided cost is greater than the levelized cost (LACE - LCOE > 0), then that resource is attractive for an energy company to build. The EIA writes that the “net difference between LACE and LCOE provides a reasonable point of comparison of first-order economic competitiveness among a wider variety of technologies than is possible using either LCOE or LACE tables individually.” Here, LACE-LCOE values provide interesting insight into what might get built in 2022 and 2040 (2019 was left out of this calculation). This graph from a 2013 EIA presentation shows the relationship between LCOE, LACE, and installed capacity. As LACE gains on LCOE, investors find it more attractive to install that kind of capacity. (The actual numbers in the graph are out of date though; currently the EIA projects that by 2022 the LACE for onshore wind will exceed its LCOE on average.) We'll start with the projected losers for whom the average LACE does not exceed the LCOE in 2022. These include:
The EIA projects that, in most regions, these forms of energy won't be attractive to build without some other outside factor being present. Winners are energy resources with a LACE that's greater than their LCOE. Geothermal appears to be the most attractive energy generation to build with a LACE-LCOE difference of 21.9. Other technologies toe the line between favorable and unfavorable, likely reflecting some considerable regional variation for whether that resource is attractive to build or not. Advanced combined cycle natural gas plants have a LACE - LCOE of 1.7, with a range of difference between -4.2 and 9. Onshore wind has an average net difference of 1, but the regional range in differences is larger, between -17.4 and 20.9. Solar PV, with an average net difference of -2, has an even wider range, between -42.5 and 21.4, meaning that some areas of the country will really want to build out more solar, and others really won't. The EIA's projections for 2040 seem to narrow: coal with 30 percent carbon removal has an average net LACE-LCOE difference of -56.1, so it's unattractive to build, but less so than 18 years prior. Offshore wind is at -63.3, and solar thermal is at -112, but onshore wind’s average net difference comes up to 3.3 and solar PV’s hits 8.2. Advanced combined cycle natural gas plants are, apparently, still attractive to build that far out in the EIA’s projection, coming in at 7.8 The future can be guessed, not known
There are some obvious winners and losers: geothermal, natural gas, onshore wind, and solar PV in the former, and coal, nuclear, solar thermal, and offshore wind in the latter. But all of these estimates are projections, and they all factor in tax credits that are set to expire in five years or less. It's hard to tell exactly what will happen by 2022—we know that the EIA's projections about wind and solar were too conservative even a couple of years back. Already we know that advances in offshore wind turbines and wind pattern projection could make that form of energy much cheaper than it is now. And if removing carbon from a coal plant's emissions becomes more economical, that could change the LACE-LCOE divide, too. For now, however, the EIA's analysis is a good way to get a broad overview on future investment in the US energy mix The lithium-ion battery manufacturer LG Chem has officially launched its residential battery systems line in the North American market. This news follows the completion of UL certification. The company’s residential battery systems line in North America is comprised of a variety of AC- and DC-coupled solutions, with system capacities ranging to up to 9.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh). There are two different voltage options available (which are paired with compatible inverters). These are a low-voltage 48V option and a high-voltage 400V option. The low-voltage option is available in system capacities of 3.3 kWh, 6.5 kWh, and 9.8 kWh. The high-voltage option is available in system capacities of 7 kWh and 9.8 kWh. The press release provides more: “The 400V RESU10H (9.8 kWh) product is compatible with SolarEdge’s StorEdge, which is a DC coupled storage solution based on a single inverter for both PV and storage. Additional inverter compatibility options will become available later in 2017 to provide homeowners with a range of pre-tested solutions from the industry’s leading suppliers.” The LG Chem lineup of residential energy storage products will, according to that pares release, be “available via a number of leading solar/storage providers in North America. Following last year’s announcement of a partnership with LG Chem, Sunrun — one of the leading US-based residential energy system providers — will be supplying LG Chem’s RESU systems. Sunrun already has installed initial systems in both Hawaii and California.” In addition, LG Chem is reportedly in “advanced negotiations” for further distribution channels. The company claims that it will be offering the systems in all US states and Canadian provinces. Briefly showing the company’s wide range of work in the automotive and stationary battery field, LG Chem notes that it “has been awarded 82 projects from 28 global automotive OEMs as of September 2016, and deployed Gigawatt-hours of global stationary battery projects.” Powur is Launching in Hawaii! Powur has entered into a partnership with Hawaii Solar Project to roll out an unprecedented product line across the Hawaiian Islands. Powur is now able to offer its customers a FULL $0 down solar solution, with an LG 10-kilowatt hour battery, all for no money down. What’s better, there are no payments for 16 months! Powur customers will enjoy 100% energy savings for 16 months, and when their payment kicks in… it will still be significantly less than what our customers use to pay utilities. This is a game-changing product that can bypass net-metering on the islands all together.
Hawaiian homeowners will truly be producing and storing their own energy, in effect, their own COMPLETE utility. This trend will be spreading across the continental U.S., and the world, as costs continue to come down. As technology evolves, new players emerge and cost cuts remain a priority, solar industry leaders must look to the latest software solutions in order to stay competitive, according to Paul Grana, co-founder of Folsom Labs.
On May 16, GTM and Folsom Labs are hosting the second-ever S3 Solar Software Summit, which is the industry’s first dedicated event covering the growing solar software ecosystem. The one-day event kicks of the 10th Annual Solar Summit, GTM’s flagship solar conference, that will be chalk full of market intelligence, engaging panel sessions and networking opportunities. We recently spoke with Grana about why the software summit matters and some of the topics that will be discussed. Why is this a crucial time to be delving into the solar software sector? Grana: The industry used to be able to count on hardware cost reductions (modules, inverters) to bring down system costs and keep the growth coming. But as hardware costs level off, installers must focus on “operational scaling” to grow, while reducing costs. This means smarter processes, smarter team structures, and smarter software tools. The solar software sector is also reaching its first level of maturity, with a number of products on the market that have compelling features and functionality, and application program interface (API) tie-ins so that users can link the products with each other to get the best combination of features and functionality. So between deeper feature sets within each of the products, and an increasing number of configurations, it is important for installers to use S3 to ensure they’re using best-in-class tools. What are some of the important industry problems solar-specific software has already addressed? Grana: Software solutions have proven to help the industry in both direct and indirect ways. In the first case, software can automate the permitting process for inspectors or assist with financial calculations. Enabling remote site assessment is another example of a direct impact, where software tools can conduct a state-of-the-art shade analysis that avoids the need to send a team to the roof. That’s a very straightforward way to cut down on the number of person-hours required to deliver a system. The indirect, or second order benefits of software emerge over time as solar companies use the tools. That includes things like the ability to take customer feedback in real-time and edit a system design on the fly, which improves the overall quality of the sales process. We’ve heard from developers that are using software tools to tailor a solar system for a potential customer in real time, right on their doorstep, based on the potential customer’s values -- be it cost, or buy American. And it significantly improves the developer’s close rate. We didn’t build software around that specific goal, but you put software in the hands of creative, smart and motivated installers and they’ll figure out how to change processes and team structure to improve performance. What’s one of the most significant problems remaining that software can help solve? Grana: Databases remain a huge problem area and driver of cost. We don’t have a good permit database across the U.S. Utility rates, incentives, module databases and inverter databases are all very inconsistently kept across the U.S. This results in a significant duplication of work across the industry. Hopefully some company will eventually build APIs that make the data available to whoever needs it, but many of these databases haven’t been built yet. Why is solar-specific software a viable business? Aren't you afraid Google, Salesforce and others are going to step in and beat all of the software startups once the industry is big enough? Grana: There is an entire class of companies that are focusing on specific industries, and beating the global incumbents. For example, Veeva Systems makes customer relationship management (CRM) software for biotech companies, and went public at a $6 billion valuation -- and have beaten Salesforce consistently head to head. This is because they understand their customer in a way that Salesforce never will, and are able to build a product that is ten times better. Solar software companies have the same opportunity. Once the big guys (Salesforce, Oracle, SAP, Autodesk) realize that the solar software industry is big enough, I think they’ll find the ‘buy’ (i.e. acquire) option will be far better than the ‘build’ option -- if solar software companies prove successful. Climate change is threatening your morning caffeine fix.
BLOOMBERG — While Washington debates whether climate change is a hoax or an imminent threat, the world coffee industry is not waiting for the American government to take action to protect its business. Coffee crops are under siege from deforestation, abnormally high temperatures, a lack of precipitation, and disease. The global market is heading for its fourth straight year of deficit, according to estimates from Rabobank International. At the same time, global demand for the beloved beverage is expected to reach an all-time high this year, led by demand from younger American consumers. Production will need to increase at least 50 percent by the middle of this century to keep pace with the demand, says Conservation International, an environmental organization. To cope, the industry is rushing to develop plants that can adapt with the changing environment. Land suitable to grow the arabica beans favored by Starbucks Corp. and other specialty roasters will be cut in half worldwide by 2050, according to the World Coffee Research institute, a group sponsored by the industry. In Brazil's Espirito Santo state, output has fallen precipitously, particularly for the robusta variety of coffee bean. In the last three years, the region has received just 50 percent of its average rainfall, while temperatures soared to 3 degrees Celsius above normal. "It was the worst drought in 80 years," Romario Gava Ferrao, a researcher at the state-run research institute, Incaper, told Bloomberg. Some farmers have moved to other regions or have invested in other crops such as pepper, he said. Hugo Ramos, a meteorologist at Incaper, isn't sure if the warmer, dryer weather is a permanent change for the region. "We have to study more to understand what will happen in the next years." The situation has become so dire that the nation is considering importing lower-quality robusta beans from Vietnam in order to meet demand, an option that has met strong opposition from local farmers. Leaf rust, a fungal disease that affects both arabica and robusta plants, is also devastating the industry. About 18.2 million bags of coffee worth about $2.5 billion were lost to the disease from 2011 to 2016, according to WCR. The loss put 1.7 million people out of work. A warmer planet means producers will be forced to contend with more frequent threats to their beans. To avert a disastrous future without coffee, Christophe Montagnon, a geneticist at the WCR, is leading a global team of researchers in an effort to find existing plants that can survive in a changed climate. "Global warming means that the only places that will remain arable are colder or at higher altitudes," Montagnon said in a telephone interview from Lyon, France. In a recent experiment, Montagnon's team took 30 plant varieties from 20 countries and placed them in a controlled environment in Laos, where they were subjected to temperatures as low as 2 degrees Celsius. The seven varieties that survived the cold snap will now be taken to other regions, from Brazil to Guatemala, to see if they can thrive in foreign soils and uncontrolled conditions. Eventually, the coffee plants deemed most resistant to both colder temperatures and leaf-rust will be selected for planting. "We now have these varieties that are resistant to frost,” Montagnon said. The next step is to challenge those varieties in different environments, he said. Finding coffee plants able to withstand leaf rust may be a bigger challenge. Recent research has shown that resistance is breaking down in some rust-resistant varieties originally developed from the 1950s to the '90s. The fungal disease remains common in some areas, particularly the Americas, where it primarily threatens the arabica beans sold by high-end roasters. Still, Montagnon remains optimistic. "This is exciting,” he said. Ahead of the People's Climate March, senators stood beside movement leaders to introduce legislation that will completely phase out fossil fuel use by 2050.
350.ORG — The "100 by '50 Act" outlines a bold plan to support workers and to prioritize low-income communities while replacing oil, coal and gas with clean energy sources like wind and solar. "100 is an important number," said 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben. "Instead of making changes around the margins, this bill would finally commit America to the wholesale energy transformation that technology has made possible and affordable, and that an eroding climate makes utterly essential. This bill won't pass Congress immediately—the fossil fuel industry will see to that—but it will change the debate in fundamental ways." The "100 by '50 Act" would put a halt to new fossil fuel infrastructure projects like Keystone XL and the Dakota Access pipeline, and fracked gas pipelines facing opposition from tribes and landowners. Instead of new fossil fuel infrastructure, the bill invests hundreds of billions of dollars per year in clean energy—enough to create four million jobs. These large-scale clean energy investments prioritize low-income communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. "While fossil fuel billionaires put profits before people, we now have a legislative roadmap to phase out this dirty industry once and for all," said 350.org Executive Director May Boeve. "This bill deploys clean energy in communities that need it most and keeps fossil fuels in the ground. From Standing Rock to the Peoples Climate March, movement leaders have been calling for these solutions for years. This bill is proof that organizing works, and it's the beginning of an important conversation." The issues covered by the bill reflect the demands of the climate movement, from Standing Rock to the fossil fuel divestment campaign, to the fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The content stands in bright contrast to fossil fuel billionaires who profit at the public's expense. While this precedent-setting bill is unlikely to pass during the Trump administration, similar bills are being considered at the state and local level in California, Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere across the country. At a press conference held by Senators Merkley and Sanders, speakers included representatives from climate and environmental justice groups, progressive organizations and more. A crowd of supporters carried banners and signs reading "100% Clean Energy For All," and, "Keep Fossil Fuels In The Ground." The event was part of an ongoing week of action leading up to the People's Climate March on April 29, when thousands of people are converging in DC and around the country to march for jobs, justice and the climate. To mark Earth Day, Hawaiian utilities documented their progress toward a clean energy future. Plus, the PUC reopened the grid-supply program. GREENTECH MEDIA — Hawaii is on a mission to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy by 2045. For this remote group of islands, achieving a fully renewable electricity system also means dramatically reducing the state's dependence on oil. Reaching the 100 percent renewable energy target "requires us to rethink everything we do," according to the Hawaiian Electric Companies —Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric and Hawaii Electric Light -- which provide electricity for 95 percent of Hawaii residents on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Hawaii Island. To mark Earth Day on April 22, the Hawaiian Electric Companies published several stats touting the utilities' clean energy progress. Here are the highlights. More renewables in the mix Hawaiian Electric Companies reached a new milestone in 2016, with 26 percent of the electricity used by customers coming from renewable resources — up from 23 percent the year before. On the island of Hawaii, renewable electricity use surpassed the halfway mark for the first time, reaching 54 percent, up from 49 percent in 2015. Maui reached a record high of 37 percent last year, and 19 percent of electricity used by customers came from renewable resources on Oahu. When it comes to the types of renewable resources in the companies' energy mix, customer-owned solar dominates with 34 percent of renewable energy generated last year, followed by wind at 29 percent and biomass in third at 19 percent. Each utility detailed its clean energy goals in the Power Supply Improvement Plan submitted to the Hawaiian Public Utilities Commission in December 2016. The goals include tripling distributed solar (of all project sizes) by 2030, and providing customers with more energy options, including community solar, demand response and electric vehicle programs. While Hawaiian utilities expect to see even greater amounts of distributed solar deployed in the years to come, high levels of residential solar generation have already created problems for Hawaii's grid. In late 2015, the PUC replaced retail-rate net metering with "grid-supply" and "self-supply" tariffs in order to moderate rooftop solar growth. Shortly after the limited grid-supply program reached its cap, Hawaii's residential solar market crashed. Earlier this month, however, regulators reopened the grid-supply program by removing projects from the queue that had been approved but never completed. Estimates show around 20 megawatts of grid-supply capacity is now available for customers of the three companies, representing about 2,800 private rooftop solar systems. The Hawaiian Electric Companies report hundreds of applications are already in line for processing, and will be processed in the order in which they were received and only as capacity becomes available through October 21, 2017. Looking further ahead, the Power Supply Improvement Plan forecasts Hawaiian Electric Companies will exceed the state’s mandated renewable energy milestones, with 48 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020; 72 percent by the end of 2030; and 100 percent by the end of 2040 -- five years ahead of the 2045 deadline. Oil consumption down 21 percent Electricity generation and oil consumption go hand in hand on the Hawaiian islands. So as renewable energy consumption has increased, Hawaiian Electric Companies have been able to back oil out of the system. From 2008 to 2016, all three companies collectively cut their oil use in generators from 10.7 million barrels to 8.5 million barrels -- a 21 percent decrease. On Oahu, where energy demands are the greatest, Hawaiian Electric's oil use fell from 7.8 million barrels to 6 million barrels. The utilities' goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2010 levels by 2020 -- a target they're already on track to surpass. To do that, the Hawaiian Electric Companies are expected to cut emissions by 865,000 tons each year, which is equivalent to the energy consumed by 116,000 homes per year, or cutting 1.8 million barrels of oil per year.
Electric-vehicle use accelerates In Hawaiian Electric Companies territory, the number of registered plug-in electric vehicles (EV) has broken the 5,000 mark. That milestone ranks Hawaii second in the nation for EV adoption per capita, after California. The companies report a dozen fast chargers are now available at shopping centers, visitor attractions and on utility property across the five islands served, and more are coming. "Transactions at our companies’ fast chargers shot up in March as EVs on the road increased and drivers became more aware of the growing number of fast chargers," according to a press release. Hawaiian utilities have partnered with branches of government, nonprofits and private companies to accelerate the adoption of EVs. Most recently, the Hawaiian Electric Companies collaborated with Nissan to offer a $10,000 rebate for the new Leaf sedan. |
James Ramos,BPII'm your go to solar energy expert here to guide you step-by-step through all of your solar options. Categories |
James The Solar Energy Expert