California residential solar installers may be using a flawed
approach to calculating and presenting the economics of solar projects
and not even know it. Earlier this year the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) finalized and approved the biggest reforms to
residential electric rates in a decade. These structural changes to rate
design change the value proposition of a solar project, but are not
likely being accounted for in the modeling.
Policy background:
Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 327 into law in October of
2013, which directed the CPUC to reform residential electric rates to
“allow for a more accurate allocation of costs that fairly reflect the
cost of service.” In July of 2015, after a long and contentious
proceeding the CPUC unanimously voted to approve a final rate reform
package. The final Proposed Decision can be seen here.
Some of the most significant changes mandated by the CPUC were: to
transition from a four-tier structure down to a two-tier structure,
reduce the pricing differentials between the tiers down to 25%,
institute a minimum bill, and implement a super user charge. These
changes will be phased-in gradually through 2020 when the “end-state”
rate design is ultimately reached. CALSEIA (California Solar Energy
Industries Association) prepared a summary of the changes and phase-in schedule which can be viewed here:
Implementation of this landmark rate reform in California has
officially begun. On 9/1/15 PG&E and SDG&E implemented their
first rate changes related to this proceeding, and SCE began a month
later on 10/1/15.
Calculating solar project economics:
The standard method for calculating the economics of a project are to
calculate the ‘annual dollar savings’ (aka avoided cost) for a specific
customer. This calculation is generally run based on the
current/effective utility rates in place at the time, which would be
representative of the dollar savings at that point in time. That ‘annual
dollar savings’ value is then escalated based on a utility escalation
rate assumption, which is typically between 3 to 6% for residential
projects in California. The ‘payback period’ and ‘rate of return’ are
then determined by adding up all the project costs, subtracting out any
incentives, and then escalating the avoided cost over the life of the
project. This method has worked well for the solar industry because it’s
simple, transparent and easily understood by the customer.
But it’s easy to see that this method is inadequate when structural
rate reform changes are scheduled to be phased-in, like the current
situation in California. Basing 25 or 30 years of dollar savings
entirely on current rates, when those rates are fundamentally changing
doesn’t provide an accurate representation of economics over the
projects’ lifetime. Using a simple escalation rate does not capture the
impending rate reform changes ahead. The methodology works for rate
changes, but it does not work well for rate reform.
What then is the best way to calculate project economics in light of impending rate reform changes?
Calculating the ‘annual dollar savings’ separately for each year
based on the phase-in schedule would be a more technically accurate way
of modeling. But this sacrifices simplicity. It would difficult to
convey this methodology to a customer, which could make the value
proposition too confusing. Alternatively it would be simple to calculate
the ‘annual dollar savings’ using the ‘end-state’ rates. At the very
least it would be worthwhile to know how the annual avoided cost
compares when using the ‘end state’ rates versus the current/effective
rates. (Quick plug: our platform Energy Toolbase has the proposed
‘end-state’ rates for all three IOU’s, both with and without the assumed
3% escalator loaded into our database, making it quick and easy to
determine what that difference would be for a specific homeowner).
This blog is meant to be informative rather than alarmist. Many
California residential solar salespeople may not be fully aware of these
dynamics. At the very least solar installers should be educated on
this, and be prepared to talk on this issue if a potential customer
asks. From a consumer protection perspective, homeowners considering
going solar today have a right to know.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/13/are-ca-solar-installers-accurately-representing-solar-project-economics/
No comments:
Post a Comment