An Accident of History

A decade ago, in response to my increasing awareness of our society’s problems of economy and sustainability, I shifted my professional focus from systems analysis, architecture, and design towards renewable energy. As both a long-time resident of sunny Arizona and an electrical engineer, I was naturally attracted to solar energy.

In my first position in the energy industry I was fortunate to work closely with the most experienced solar engineer in Arizona. Not only was I able to rapidly gain a wealth of knowledge through observation and practice, but my mentor was also a talented and generous teacher.

As my knowledge of the industry grew, I began to recognize the systemic problems that prevent solar energy from thriving in and around The Valley of the Sun. Initially, I had little more than an intuitive glimpse of these problems. The journey towards understanding the pervasive nature of these problems began early this decade with a simple and somewhat selfish question, “Does it make good economic sense to remain in the solar energy industry?”

The attempt to answer this question led to many long evenings with papers, books and spreadsheets. From this work, an economic model began to develop. The answer that began to emerge was encouraging.

As the model was tested and refined, it became apparent that with existing incentives, a low-risk investment in on-site solar electric energy in Arizona often realizes returns greater than the historical, long-term average annual returns of the S&P 500. Stated succinctly, solar energy in sunny Arizona is a better investment than the stock market. Without incentives, an investment in solar energy regularly outperforms other low-risk investments.

When the results of the analyses were first presented in 2003, conservative numbers were used for the projections. One exception to this cautious practice was the aggressive $6.50 installed cost per solar watt that was employed in Money from the Sun. This article was featured in the 100th issue of Home Power magazine that was published in April of 2004. The intent of using that figure was to highlight a tipping point for the price of solar energy. The cost of solar energy had been trending down and $6.50 per watt was near the low end of costs in Arizona at that time.

One parameter that was always kept conservative was to project only a 2 percent annual average increase in utility electricity costs. Because the avoided cost of energy is a key determinant for the value of the solar investment, conservative estimates were rigorously maintained.

At the time, few expected that within a few years our financial system would nearly collapse, or that the costs of energy in Arizona would rise so quickly and so dramatically.

When Money from the Sun was published in 2004, the real cost of energy in Arizona was at its lowest in over a decade. This low price would soon prove to be very temporary. Within a year, prices began to trend upward as Arizona began to approach a looming energy gap.

Today, more than five years after the publication of Money from the Sun, with the (avoidable) cost of energy still rising, an investment in solar energy is better than ever. The meme of promoting solar energy as an investment is proliferating.

It may have been an accident of history that my initial work in solar economics was done during the historical low for energy prices in Arizona. It is no accident that solar energy remains chained to the anchor of toxic energy interests.

A Nice Day

The friendly symbol of sunny well-wishing should be an appropriate companion to solar energy.

In his September 15th Op-Ed in the New York Times, Have a Nice Day, Thomas L. Friedman deplores the fact that the photovoltaic manufacturing industry in the United States is lagging. He notes that California-based Applied Materials, one of the world’s leading providers of solar module manufacturing equipment and fabrication solutions does nearly all of its business outside the U.S! Mr. Friedman does us all a great service by bringing this critical issue to more widespread attention. Yet, his listing of “the three prerequisites for growing a renewable energy industry” neglects the more fundamental issue that Rate Crimes exists to explain.

Mr. Friedman’s “prerequisites” are the same as those upon which the Arizona Renewable Energy Standards and Tariff (REST) rules and most other such programs are founded. However, the nation’s solar future —and even the still inadequate programs inspired by the Arizona REST rules—will continue to be delayed while the long-standing, repressive rate schedules in the nation’s sunniest state go unchallenged and unchanged. More than reparative rules, the marketplace for energy is in need of transparency and equitable accounting.

Until such change occurs, Mr. Friedman’s sarcastic, “Have a nice day” must be accompanied by a new symbol:

Made in China

Mr. Friedman exposes a sad irony, “So, right now, our federal and state subsidies for installing solar systems are largely paying for the cost of importing solar panels made in China, by Chinese workers, using hi-tech manufacturing equipment invented in America.”

It must first be admitted that we should be grateful for the efforts and foresight of China and Germany. They have sustained a critical industry while vested interests in the U.S. have repressed its advancement. However, there is a doubly sad irony.

Rate Crimes has discussed before the risks of using modules of unproven design and how the United States lags in assuring product quality. Not only should the nation immediately declare repressive energy pricing schemes to be illegal, but it should require more than safety certification. In addition, performance certification should be required for any and all photovoltaic modules sold in the United States.

Won’t that be a nice day!

The Followers of Texas

The Goldwater Institute’s 36-page policy paper of July 21st, Opening the Grid: How to Recharge Arizona’s Electricity System for the 21st Century begins with a promising first sentence. It is no secret that Arizona’s effectively unregulated, monopolistic electricity industry “is ill-equipped to meet the state’s growing demand for energy.” There is an impending, precipitous gap between the projected energy demand and what energy provision has been prepared or planned.

However, the paper abruptly steps into something squishy and pungent with its second sentence. The authors state, “Nor, is [the electricity industry] well-suited to contain the higher costs that are likely to result from renewable energy mandates.” Apparently, the authors – two university economics professors – have missed the fact that in sunny Arizona, on-site solar electricity is an increasingly superior investment in comparison with the purchase of electricity generated from traditional, toxic fuels at gargantuan, centralized plants. This, despite the existence of repressive rate schedules that result in hidden taxes; as well as the existence of unaccounted subsidies (water, liability, etc.) that have artificially (and temporarily) maintained the illusion of inexpensive electricity from the traditional power sources.

As a central piece of evidence for its arguments, the persistently dogmatic Opening the Grid heaps hefty praise on Texas for the deregulation of their retail energy market. Even a quick glance at Texas’s energy mix shows that little has changed since their deregulation began in 2002; other than a small, but significant increase in the amount of wind power.

The landscape of Northern Texas has enjoyed abundant wind resources since it was formed. Modern wind technology has been available for decades. Only recently was Texas’s increase in wind power generation finally inspired as a reaction to the increasing costs of the traditional, toxic fuels; and by the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). Because of its reliance on expensive natural gas, Texas’s cost of electricity is among the highest in the nation. The PTC is a federal tax incentive that runs counter to the fundamental tenet of the Goldwater Institute.

In its second paragraph, the Goldwater Institute’s policy paper claims that, “Texas, Pennsylvania and Britain have recently restructured their electricity industries to achieve remarkable improvements in both conventional and renewable generation capacity”. Opening the Grid is three dozen well-written pages of dogmatic arguments based on, at least, one false premise.

If the dogma of the Goldwater Institute is unquestioningly accepted, our energy policy will remain short-sighted and reactive. Following Texas will only get us deeper into a sticky status quo. Any Texan will tell you, “When following the herd, be careful where you step.”

Success will depend – for more than just Arizona - on Arizona’s ability to achieve a unique, long-range vision; and to then act proactively and with constancy. Such behavior is commonly recognized as leadership.

Solar Price Drop Soup

An article published on August 26th in the New York Times, titled “More Sun for Less: Solar Panels Drop in Price”, delights in the recent lowering of the cost of solar electric modules and praises the benefits for consumers.

While the brief article provides some of the causes of the recent 40 percent drop in prices, and also discusses some of the ramifications, it neglects to deliver the most important message: buyer beware!

A homeowner interviewed in the article is ecstatic about his $23,000 savings (on an original price of $100,000), “I just thought, ‘Wow, this is an opportunity to do the most for the least’”. Such savings would certainly appear to be a good thing. It may also be that the solar company increased its margin and made a few extra dollars. All good, so far.

The source of the problem is mentioned without analysis in the article, "'A ton of production, mostly Chinese, has come online,' said Chris Whitman, the president of U.S. Solar Finance, which helps arrange bank financing for solar projects." The problem is that increased production of modules does not equate to an increase in the proportion of quality modules. Not all modules are the same. Some manufacturers, some designs, are better than others. With a surge in production, with the arrival of numerous new companies, and with increased competition in the market, it is likely that the number of substandard manufacturers and module designs will also increase.

Modules from nearly every manufacturer now carry a 25-year warranty. The terms of these warranties are based on a number of factors, not the least of which is the competitive advantage enjoyed by experienced, large, and/or well-capitalized manufacturers who establish the de facto warranty standard, yet run a relatively low risk compared to their smaller, emerging competitors who must provide a similar warranty. A warranty is really only as valuable as the strength of the company backing it.

The only way to be assured that a module design might be reliable and durable is to subject it to a test regimen that includes advanced aging techniques. Such testing is an expensive endeavor, made doubly so because it is time-consuming. Established manufacturers often perform their own tests. However, all photovoltaic module manufacturers who intend to sell their product into the world market must obtain a performance qualification to international standards from an independent testing laboratory.

However, there is contention that even the most rigorous advanced aging tests in the existing standards only reflect about a decade of a module’s active life. More than half the module’s life is unaccounted for by these tests. Furthermore, the performance qualification examines only the module design. The performance standards do not include manufacturing standards or factory inspections.

As troubling as are the limitations of the current standards, it should be highly troubling that in the United States only safety certification is required for solar modules. No performance qualification is required for modules to be sold in the United States! This imbalance leads to the United States being a magnet for modules that are safe, but suffer from substandard performance.

A 23 percent cost savings greatly improves the economics of a solar investment. It can also cover a lot of future performance problems. However, risking $77,000 to potentially substandard modules is an inordinate risk. Buyers should be aware of the real value of the warranties. They should also demand that photovoltaic modules have at least the IEC performance qualification for the design. If the module manufacturer cannot provide a valid certificate of performance, then . . . buyer beware.

Note: It is important to verify the authenticity of any certificate of performance qualification. The industry has experienced forged certificates. The testing authority, as indicated on the certificate, will be able to provide confirmation of the certificate’s authenticity.

Note: The title of the New York Times article is guilty of using a common misnomer. The term “panel” is appropriate for the boxy solar thermal collectors for domestic hot water systems. A solar electric collector is a package of interconnected photovoltaic cells. These packages are modular components of one or more strings or arrays in photovoltaic systems. Therefore, even though there is often confusion in the common parlance, they are appropriately called solar modules. Distinguishing between the technologies provides greater clarity.

Shell Game

In Arizona, with its abundant solar resource, supplemental solar electric energy has long been an extraordinary investment . . . at least, in the residential sector. In the commercial and industrial sectors, the electricity rate schedules are structured to defeat the value of solar energy and other energy management strategies.

It seems a strange twist to defeat the value of solar energy for the sectors that are most active - and therefore whose energy demand is highest - during the middle of the day when the Arizona sun is blazing.

It is a revealing twist. Residential consumers are terminal energy consumers. Unlike businesses, they cannot pass on their costs through increases in prices for goods supplied and services rendered.

Large commercial and industrial electricity consumers in Arizona enjoy a generous subsidy because their average cost of electricity is much lower than for the other sectors due to the declining block structures of the commercial rate schedules. Therefore, the largest electricity consumers have too little incentive to implement energy management strategies in order to avoid these low costs. Small businesses pay a much higher average cost for electricity. However, the rate plan structures still defeat the value of solar energy for them.

Furthermore, small businesses who might best take advantage of the benefits of solar energy, and subsequently lower the local grid infrastructure costs, suffer from greater constraints compared to larger businesses. Small businesses more often have limited freedom of action because they do not own their property; they have fewer man-hours to dedicate to special projects; they have less diversity of skills; and they have far less available capital. They are a captive energy market.

The illusion that residential energy costs are kept low has been reinforced by the presence of the Arizona Residential Utilities Consumer Office (RUCO). Despite the freedom of action and investment advantages enjoyed by homeowners, the real cost of electricity is hidden in the increased costs of goods and services provided by Arizona’s small businesses. Renters enjoy no advantages. Effectively, a hidden tax has been created.

Perhaps ironically, the presence of RUCO may be contributing to the delayed adoption of solar energy and energy conservation.

Welcome

Solar energy is increasingly recognized as being critically important to the future of our technological society and of our culture. The conversation at Rate Crimes exists to explain and to explore why solar energy is important to humanity; why the need for its rapid adoption is urgent; why the American Desert Southwest is central to achieving a rapid and widespread adoption; why the state of Arizona is particularly central to this goal; how a sustainable solar energy future has been, and continues to be delayed; and to expose one of the greatest, and heretofore unrecognized crimes of our time.

The central goal of this conversation is to bring transparency to the discussion of our energy future. The pertinent crime is that the discussion has been kept opaque for far too long. You are invited to join the conversation and help us to achieve clarity.

The conversation will primarily revolve around issues of technology, natural resources, politics, social policy, and economics. Economics will be the fulcrum on which sits the lever that will be this conversation.

We leave you with an image to ponder: