Tag Archives: Solar energy

Inside the Facebook Solar Deal

As part of the $1 billion Facebook data-center deal, Dominion Energy Virginia will file a request with the State Corporation Commission to create a new kind of solar tariff called Schedule RF. (The RF stands for Renewable Facility.) The tariff, if approved, could be used by other big customers seeking renewable energy.

“We came together with Dominion Energy Virginia to create a new tariff that ensures renewable energy solutions are accessible not just to Facebook, but other companies as well,” said Bobby Hollis, director of Global Energy at Facebook in a press release issued last week. The tariff “opens the door to attracting more businesses and more jobs for the communities we serve,” said Robert M. Blue, president of Dominion’s Power Delivery Group.

Virginia is well positioned to win more data-center projects and, as major players in cloud services are committed to reducing their carbon footprints, there likely will be more Facebook-like deals in the future. Given the magnitude of data-center energy consumption — the Facebook facility is expected to consume as much electricity as 32,500 homes and the solar investment will run roughly $250 million — these deals could well influence Virginia’s energy mix and cost of electricity. Curious to know more about how the project is structured, I talked to Dianne Corsello, director of Dominion’s business development group.

At full build-out, Facebook will require 130 megawatts of electricity. Power consumption at data centers is fairly constant, but the output of solar farms varies with weather and time of day. Assuming the panels are equipped with trackers, which rotate to follow the sun and generate more power, the solar farms will generate electricity only 25% of the time. Consequently, Dominion will need to build about 300 megawatts total solar capacity. (By way of comparison, the utility’s state-of-the-art gas-fired power station in Greensville is rated at 1,588 megawatts capacity and generates electricity approximately 85% of the time.)

Dominion soon will issue an RFP to solar developers with the expectation of bringing the solar capacity online in 2019 and 2020, Corsello says. The utility will draw from multiple facilities, none larger than 150 megawatts in size.

The SCC must approve the Schedule RF tariff, just as it will have to approve the rates charged by each proposed solar facilities using Schedule RF. Facebook will pay the full retail rate plus an add-on for the purchase of renewable. Under the tariff Facebook will receive Renewable Energy Certificates certifying that the company has paid for renewable energy equal to the volume of electricity it consumed. Facebook’s payments for these certificates will help offset the higher cost of solar power paid by all Dominion ratepayers.

The 300 megawatts of solar capacity arising from the Facebook project will be over and above Dominion’s commitment to derive 15% of its electricity from renewable power sources by 2025.

Electric Coops Vet Community Solar Plan

Subscribers to a community solar program in the works by five Virginia electrical cooperatives would pay a rate premium of 42% to 45% to use clean, renewable energy, according to data released by the electric coops.

The five rural cooperatives, who may be joined by others in a State Corporation Commission (SCC) filing late October or November, have developed the plan for customers unable to install their own solar capacity to purchase solar through the coops. The rates primarily reflect the cost of building the solar capacity. They do not include any cost for administering the program, but they do cover transmission and line losses to the cooperatives.

The five electric coops include A&N Electric Cooperative, Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative, Northern Neck Electric Cooperative, and Rappahannock Electric Cooperative.

Unlike like investor-owned utilities, such as Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power, Virginia’s electrical cooperatives are owned by their customers. Because they pay no dividends to shareholders and don’t answer to Wall Street analysts, they have more flexibility in the programs they offer, said Sam Brumberg, association counsel for the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives, in a conference call Thursday to solicit feedback from solar developers and other stakeholders.

Legislation enacted in the 2017 General Assembly session allows electric companies to create “community solar” programs in which power companies market and re-sell solar power built by independent solar developers. The programs must be approved by the SCC.

Numerous electric coop customers have expressed an interest in purchasing solar energy through the cooperatives, said Brumberg, and the community solar program will provide them with a choice they don’t have now. The voluntary program will provide customers “easy on, easy off,” one-year subscriptions, which will allow them to avoid the long-term financial commitment of installing their own solar.  However, the voluntary program is designed to recover its costs from its subscribers.

The program will guaranteed flat rates for at least three years. While the solar portion of the rate will remain fixed for longer periods, the distribution charge may rise. 

A major sticking point addressed in the conference call was affordability of the program for low- and middle-income (LMI) customers. Brumberg discussed the potential for subsidizing the rates for certain customers, perhaps through government grants, foundation grants, or involvement of a large commercial “anchor tenant” who could absorb a disproportionate share of the cost.

Bacon’s bottom line: These are the first figures I’ve found that indicate the  cost of community solar in the current economic environment. The 40% to 45% premium represents a significant hurdle to widespread market penetration. In effect, community solar represents a luxury good in the energy marketplace, a fact that the electric cooperatives indirectly acknowledge by their concern that LMI customers may be difficult to recruit.

Admittedly, the economics of solar are changing. The per-kW cost of solar is steadily declining. So is the cost of battery storage, which makes it feasible to store surplus solar-generated electricity and release it when needed. Moreover, the “fuel” cost of solar — essentially zero — will not increase, while the cost of fossil fuel alternatives, especially natural gas, most likely will rise over time. But as long as programs are voluntary, and as long as most customers value money in their hand today more than savings years from now, it will be a challenge to persuade them to pay the premium.

Buried Lines and Microgrids

Downed power lines in Puerto Rico. Photo credit: ABC News.

Virginia has enjoyed a welcome respite from meteorological history, having dodged full-fledged hurricanes since Hurricane Isabel struck the Old Dominion in 2003 and Hurricane Gaston in 2004. But sooner or later, we’ll get hammered again. After surveying the devastation of Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria, made worse by the total collapse of the territory’s electric grid, we Virginians should be asking ourselves how well our electric grid would stand up to a Category 4 hurricane — and what can we do to make it more resilient.

Two potential actions come immediately to mind: burying distribution lines and decentralizing the grid.

Last year Dominion Virginia Power advanced a $2 billion plan to bury the utility’s most outage-prone and difficult-to-repair electric distribution lines to limit the loss of electricity during severe weather events and speed the restoration of electric power. The company said the improvements would cut disruption of service to customers in half after a major hurricane. While the State Corporation Commission approved a small-scale version of the plan, it rejected the full-scale proposal as not worth the cost to rate payers.

There are alternatives to burying electric lines, such as hardening sub-stations, installing sensors that provide early-warning detection of damage, and aggressively pruning trees along right of way. But with the example of a prostrate Puerto Rico before our eyes, one might be more inclined to err on the side of caution. The wisdom of the line-burial policy depends upon the numbers — the cost of burying the lines, the cost of the alternatives, the number of people affected, the likelihood of a major hurricane or other natural disaster, and the economic value lost due to disrupted electric service. I don’t know if anyone has assembled all those numbers, but the topic is serious enough that someone — Dominion, perhaps, or state government — should pull them together for the public to digest.

Others have suggested that Virginia should move toward a distributed electrical grid, less dependent upon central power stations and endless miles of transmission and distribution lines. A distributed grid would rely instead upon wind and solar, batteries, and microgrid technology that allows local circuits to operate independently of the larger system. In theory, local islands of electric power would function even if the larger system were thrown into disarray.

Slate magazine describes Higashi Matsushima, Japan, in the aftermath of the earthquake that knocked out the Fukushima nuclear power plant:

After losing three-quarters of its homes and 1,100 people in the March 2011 tremblor and tsunami … The city of 40,000 chose to construct micro-grids and de-centralized renewable power generation to create a self-sustaining system capable of producing an average of 25 percent of its electricity without the need of the region’s local power utility.

The city’s steps illustrate a massive yet little known effort to take dozens of Japan’s towns and communities off the power grid and make them partly self-sufficient in generating electricity.

Sounds great. But questions arise. How well would Americans function with only 25% of their electricity supply? Also, how well do solar panels hold up in 120 mile-per-hour winds? Some pro-solar sources on the Web say that panels are designed to withstand up to 140 m.p.h. Do those claims withstand scrutiny?

Another issue is what happens when a massive weather system blots out the sun for days at a time. Batteries might be able to store power for a day, but solar + batteries could leave leave owners of rooftop solar bereft of electricity until the storm front passes and the sun reappears. On the other hand, Inside Climate News reports that, while Hurricane Irma cut power to 6.7 million Floridians, homeowners with rooftop solar arrays did just fine.

If unbiased reporting and analysis backs up such claims, perhaps Virginia needs to discuss how to move more expeditiously towards a distributed grid. That would mean solving tricky issues like net metering — whether to charge rooftop solar owners for access to backup power from the larger grid. A mediation initiative is trying to work through that question now. Perhaps Puerto Rico’s plight will provide the stakeholders with a heightened sense of urgency.

Dominion Touts Economic Benefits of Pumped-Storage Project

“Technology Risks and Maturity Level of Energy Storage Technologies.” Graphic credit: Dominion 2017 Integrated Resource Plan.

A proposed pumped hydroelectric storage power station in Southwest Virginia would bring more than $576 million in economic benefits to the Commonwealth, including $320 million in economic impact for Southwest Virginia, according to a study prepared by Richmond-based Chmura Economics & Analytics and commissioned by Dominion Energy.

The hydroelectric project, proposed by Dominion Energy, would support 3,000 Virginia jobs during development and construction, including 2,000 in the coalfield region. Once in operation, the facility would produce about $37 million annually in economic impact for Southwest Virginia including $12 million annually in tax revenues for local governments in Southwest Virginia, states Dominion in a press release.

“We are very excited about the prospect of bringing another major capital investment to the coalfield region of Southwest Virginia,” said Mark Mitchell, vice president of generation construction. (Dominion already operates a hybrid coal-biomass generating plant in Wise County.) “The entire grid system will benefit from having this new generation once it comes online, and the local area will benefit from the jobs and economic benefits that will come from it.”

The Dominion press release did not address the potential impact of the pumped-storage project on Virginia rate payers. While the facility would entail a hefty up-front capital cost, it could generate electricity during periods of peak demand or, potentially, offset fluctuations in output by Dominion’s increasing fleet of utility-scale solar farms. In its 2017 Integrated Resource Plan, Dominion describes pumped storage as the most mature and economically feasible form of energy storage, adding that the “proven dispatchable technology … would complement the ongoing development of renewable solar and wind resources.”

While Dominion operates the nation’s largest pumped storage dam in Bath County, it had not indicated much interest in second major facility until this year when the General Assembly enacted a bill that encourages a Virginia utility to build a pumped-storage facility in the coalfields. The law would allow the utility to petition the State Corporation Commission to recover project costs as they are incurred rather than waiting until the project is complete. Legislators made no secret of the fact that they saw the project as a boon for the economically depressed coalfield region, and some speculated that the pumped-storage facility might be accompanied by extensive local investment in solar power.

A pumped storage facility uses gravity-fed water from an upper-level basin to a lower-level basin to power the generators during periods of peak demand, when electricity is most expensive, and uses electric power to pump the water back to the upper basin when electricity is cheap.

After examining more than 150 potential sites in far Southwest Virginia for suitable geology and topography, availability of water, proximity to electric transmission lines, impact on landowners and other factors, Dominion has selected a site in Tazewell County “for further study.” Should its in-depth, on-the-ground studies show the site to be not suitable, it has identified other candidate locations for the facility.

Another option, touted by coalfield legislators, was to use a mine cavity as a lower reservoir. Dominion has engaged Dr. Michael Karmis at Virginia Tech to evaluate the idea. “Based on information provided to Dominion Energy Virginia,” says the Dominion website, “the former Bullitt mine near the town of Appalachia was identified as a top site for evaluation and will be evaluated in the Virginia Tech study.”

The company website says that the project is “in its very early stages and the project’s final size and scope have not yet been determined.” After scrapping with landowners along the route of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, of which it is the managing partner, Dominion is “sensitive to the needs and concerns” of homeowners who might be impacted by a pumped storage facility, the website says. The company “will make every effort to keep them informed and work with them throughout the process.”

Bacon’s bottom line: While Dominion is careful to say that it has not committed to a pumped-storage project, the fact that it has commissioned a positive economic impact report suggests that it is laying the political/PR groundwork for one. Could this be a harbinger of a greater commitment by Dominion to solar and wind power in the future? Or does Dominion plan to sell electricity into wholesale markets to for purchase by other utilities with big plans for renewables? That’s another economic analysis I’d like to see.

The Long, Painful Slog to Resolving the Net Metering Debate

Graphic credit: SolaireGen

After a two-hour telephone discussion Thursday, participants in a “net metering” sub-group of the Solar Policy Collaborative Workgroup didn’t seem to agree on much other than which issues need to be resolved. But that represented progress of a sort toward promoting small-scale, distributed solar energy in Virginia by businesses, homeowners and nonprofits.

“These are very difficult and complex problems. We made a run at it last  year, and didn’t get there,” Mark Rubin, the Virginia Commonwealth University professor and mediator behind the policy collaborative, said at the beginning of the session. “From a process perspective,” he said at the end, “this has been a helpful, productive call.”

The solar policy group, which worked out compromise legislation enabling “community” solar in the 2017 session, tackled the net metering issue without success last year. Two-thirds of the way through the current year, the group still seems far from formulating a consensus on net metering. But the conference-call discussion Thursday, which included a diverse set of participants ranging from electric utilities to smaller solar developers and environmental groups, did at least illuminate the main fault lines of debate.

“Net metering” refers to the regulatory system governing how small solar power producers, usually businesses and households putting solar panels on their roofs, connect with power companies. Solar panels often produce more electricity than property owners can absorb during peak periods, and a policy question arises as to the terms and conditions under which they sell their surplus to the electric companies. Solar advocates say utilities should pay small producers the full retail rate. Utilities respond that (a) the full retail rate is higher than the wholesale price of electricity they can purchase on the open market, and (b) they should be compensated for maintaining the electric transmission and distribution grid that solar producers periodically draw upon.

Long a laggard in solar energy, Virginia now has a big pipeline of solar deals in the works, and environmentally conscious consumers soon will be able to purchase renewable energy developed by community groups and marketed and sold through the utilities. But most solar production is large scale generation in vast tracts farms owned and operated by the state’s electric utilities, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power. Progress has been much slower for small-scale, rooftop solar for the masses.

The most intractable issue facing the net-metering workgroup centered on standby charges. While the impact of rooftop solar on Virginia’s electric grid is minimal now — less than 1% of the power supply — participants are looking 20 to 30 years down the road to when it could become a major contributor. If hundreds of thousands of customers generated most of their own electricity, cutting into utility revenues, other customers would be stuck with the cost of building and maintaining the distribution and transmission lines that even those with rooftop solar rely upon from time to time. To offset this erosion of market share, utilities want to charge solar businesses and households a stand-by charge amounting to several dollars per month.

Katherine Bond, Dominion’s senior policy adviser, noted that a minimum bill of $7 monthly would not cover the company’s costs.

Solar advocates and environmental groups counter that solar is cost positive — that solar has a value that benefits utilities. For example, solar panels emit no carbon dioxide emissions, thereby making it easier for states to attain regulatory goals. Also, peak solar production overlaps with peak electricity demand, reducing the need for utilities to purchase expensive, peak-load electricity on wholesale electricity markets.

These issues are all well known, as they have been hashed out in many other states. What’s not known are the particulars here in Virginia. Because each state has unique geography, solar exposure, and regulatory systems, cost-benefit numbers that might apply to California or North Carolina may not necessarily apply to Virginia.

Aaron Sutch, program director of VA SUN, expressed the view of many that he wants to see more data. “We really do appreciate a respectful dialogue,” he said. But he added, “We haven’t seen any data from the utility side on the issue of cost recovery. … This should be a data-driven process.”

Will Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, agreed. “If you want stakeholder buy-in, present the data so we can see [that cost recovery] is a legitimate problem. It’s hard from an optics perspective to hear that you can’t share the data. It makes it hard for [solar] advocates to agree to any solution if the data isn’t provided.”

“I understand your point that you’d like it to be disseminated more broadly,” said Rubin, the lead mediator of the workgroup. Core members of the net metering sub-group have been exchanging detailed data. But due to the proprietary nature of the data, participants have been held to strict confidentiality. Perhaps, once a particular path forward has been chosen, it might be possible to share more detailed data, he added.

A related issue is the necessity of attributing a monetary value to the positive impact of rooftop solar.  It wasn’t clear from the discussion whether the electric utilities had any data to formulate an estimate.

The sub-group discussed other, seemingly less contentious, issues. No one voiced opposition to the proposition that anyone investing in solar energy today should be grandfathered, or protected, from changes in the law that would harm the financial return on their investment. Rubin said Virginia needs to create a “glide path” to a new system. “How do you go forward without hurting those people who have already committed to solar?”

Workgroup Seeks Compromises to Move Solar Forward

The consensus-building workgroup that fostered 2017 legislation to promote community solar energy in Virginia reconvened Monday to grapple with more intractable issues that stand in the way of widespread adoption of solar power.

Participants in the Solar Policy Collaborative Workgroup had clashed repeatedly in the General Assembly over the years, but decided to pursue a different approach in 2016. Mediated by Mark Rubin, executive director of the Virginia Center for Consensus Building at Virginia Commonwealth University, they worked out a compromise proposal that will allow Virginians to purchase renewable electricity generated by local, independent solar developers and marketed by electric utilities.

The General Assembly enacted the law in the 2017 session, and participants hope to build on the success, tackling issues that they could not resolve last year. “A level of trust and respect has been established among members of the steering committee,” said Rubin when convening the Monday meeting.

This year the ad hoc organization is seeking input from a broader array of stakeholders and inviting the public to attend meetings. Sub-groups will discuss issues relating to land use, large developers, large customers, community development and net metering. Of the five topics net metering — in which utilities pay owners of solar facilities for surplus electricity they supply to the grid — stimulated by far the most interest, inspiring numerous comments from the audience.

“No ideas are off the table,” said Sam Brumberg, counsel for the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives, and a leader of the net metering sub-group. He cited time-of-use rates, charging for usage of the grid, feed-in tariffs (which enable long-term contracts for solar generators) and other options that might be considered to encourage distributed solar development. “No idea is off limits.”

Brumberg was joined by Scott Thomasson, southeast director of Vote Solar. His organization has engaged in some “fierce battles” in other states over solar policy, he said. By participating in the Virginia solar workshop, he added, he hopes to “get better outcomes through dialogue. We want to avoid the melt-downs in other states.”

Net metering. One thing most audience members agreed upon is that the existing net metering law, designed to protect electric utilities, is a hindrance to widespread adoption of solar energy by homeowners, small businesses, and other small users. Current law limits net metering to residential systems up to 10 kW and commercial systems up to 500 kW, with a program cap if generating capacity reaches 1% of an electric utility’s peak load for the previous year. The benefit to generators is that their surplus electricity can be used to offset electricity purchases from the utility during off-peak periods.

Dominion Energy has sought to limit the surplus that generators could use to offset their electricity sales, while both Dominion and Appalachian Power have insisted upon stand-by charges to compensate them for the cost of maintaining the electric grid that solar-generating residences would draw upon for backup. Builders, environmentalists and other advocates say the restrictions make solar less attractive to install and give small, distributed generators no credit for the load they take off the transmission and distribution grids.

The interests of the electric utilities and the others seem starkly opposed, and there is no obvious way to reconcile the two. But Katharine Bond, senior policy adviser for Dominion, sounded an optimistic note, suggesting that new technology and novel rate structures might make the utilities “more agnostic” about solar initiatives that cut into utility revenues.

Another complication is that net-metering advocates are a diverse group and do not agree amongst themselves on the best approach. Charles Guarino, a Richmond-area resident, made a plea for simplicity in the net metering law. “If people don’t understand it, they won’t participate,” he said.

But Tom Hadwin, with Waynesboro-based ACN Energy Solutions, advocated a value-of-solar tariff based on the premise that it made more sense from the perspective of balancing load on the electric grid to put solar in some locations than in others. Electric rates would be less favorable for solar located near where the grid was congested than for locations where grid congestion was not an issue.

“Simplicity is good, but there are trade-offs,” said Thomasson with Vote Solar., who suggested that a tariff that varied by time of day and load demand might suit some better.

“Not everyone can get what they want,” said Brumberg, but “if we’re successful, folks will get some of what they want.” Continue reading

Why Panda Power Loves Natural Gas

Bechtel, which helped build the Stonewall station, used a 500-tire trailer the length of a football field — to deliver manufactured components to the construction site.

Yesterday I wrote about the 778-megawatt gas-fired Panda Stonewall power station starting up near Leesburg. Against the backdrop of ongoing debate over gas versus solar here in Virginia, I wondered why the Dallas, Tex., investors behind the plant were willing to risk more than half a billion dollars in equity and debt on a merchant generating facility that would sell into the wholesale electricity market.

How did these newcomers to the Virginia energy scene see the future of electricity? Aren’t they worried that solar energy will displace gas in a few years as the price of solar continues to drop and the cost of natural gas is expected to rise? Aren’t they worried their big investment will be rendered valueless? Remember, Panda has zero political influence in Richmond, and the company can’t go running to the State Corporation Commission to bail it out if the bet on natural gas goes sour.

Bill Pentak, vice president of public affairs, says Panda Power Funds owns both gas and solar facilities. “We understand solar,” he says. “We built the largest solar project in the northeastern United States, covering 100 acres in southern New Jersey.”

Panda Power Funds will invest in projects that make economic sense, Pentak says, and right now the economics tend to favor natural gas. Take that New Jersey solar facility — it produces 20 megawatts of electricity. “That’s gross. But you’ve got to convert [the electricity] from DC power to AC. You lose 10 percent in the conversion. In the real world, it produces 18 megawatts.”

Then there’s the land use to consider, he says. Solar requires lots of acreage, and it takes up land that has alternative economic uses such as farming. The Stonewall plant takes up a fraction of the space and produces far more energy — 62 times as much on one fifth the land.

Then factor in solar’s intermittent production. Solar does not generate electricity at night, and it fluctuates during the day. The more solar installed, the more gas is needed as a backup. Says Pentak:

If you have ton of solar or wind on your grid, you make it less stable. If the wind dies down or the sun stops shining, the grid operator will have to call upon power that can be quickly dispatched. It won’t be coal fired, which takes three days to ramp up. It won’ t be nuclear, which takes three weeks. All that’s left is natural gas. A combined-cycle plant can cycle up in an hour and a half. A combustion turbine can in 30 to 40 minutes.

Thus, gas will be needed both as a base-load energy source and a back-up energy source. “We think Stonewall will operate as a base-load plant,” he says. But technology has blurred the distinction between peak load, intermediate load and base-load. Combined cycle plants — which generate electricity with gas-burning turbines and recycle the waste heat to run steam turbines — can operate as a base-load power source if need be, and also can dial output up and down as required.

Battery technology is not at the point where batteries can store enough energy to meet large-scale power needs, Pentak says. Moreover, batteries are not environmentally friendly. “Where do you put spent batteries? Solar technology is promising, but it’s not there yet.”

McAuliffe Moves to Cap Utility Carbon Emissions

Governor Terry McAuliffe. Photo credit: Associated Press

Big news yesterday: Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order to cap greenhouse gas emissions from Virginia power plants. Unfortunately, I’m out of town on personal business today, so I don’t have time for anything more than a cursory analysis.

Said McAuliffe in a press release: ““The threat of climate change is real, and we have a shared responsibility to confront it. Once approved, this regulation will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the Commonwealth’s power plants and give rise to the next generation of energy jobs. As the federal government abdicates its role on this important issue, it is critical for states to fill the void. Beginning today, Virginia will lead the way to cut carbon and lean in on the clean energy future.”

McAuliffe’s press release cited the job-creation benefits that would come from a shift from fossil fuels to solar energy. Last year, as solar production took off in Virginia, the solar industry employed 3,236 workers — twice the number supported by coal. McAuliffe said also invoked sea level rise to justify his move:

Virginia is already experiencing the effects of climate change in its coastal regions due to rising sea levels. The threat from frequent storm surges and flooding could cost the Commonwealth close to $100 billion dollars for residential property alone. The impacts extend far beyond our coast, as half of Virginia’s counties face increased risk of water shortages by 2050 resulting from climate-related weather shifts.

The action now moves to the Department of Environmental Quality, which the governor ordered to write the regulations.

Bacon’s bottom line: McAuliffe’s move will generate headlines and plenty of political heat — Republicans have already announced their opposition to what they call the governor’s executive overreach — but it’s far from clear what practical impact the move will have. Acknowledging that the cost of solar energy has plummeted, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power already have forecast that they will move heavily toward renewable energy sources over the next 25 years.

The press release spoke of a “cap” on greenhouse gases and new regulations that will “reduce” carbon emissions — not merely reduce carbon intensity (carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt of energy produced). It is possible to reduce the carbon intensity of the electric generating fleet while allowing total carbon emissions to increase, albeit it at a much slower rate, as the economy grows. If Virginia caps carbon emissions, Dominion and Apco might be required to close additional coal-fired power stations, and it is unlikely that Dominion would build a planned gas-fired power plant in the early 2020s. Cancellation of that facility could undermine the economics of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, construction of which McAuliffe has said he supports.

Expect trench warfare between utilities, environmentalists and consumer advocates in the DEQ hearings discussing how to implement the carbon caps. Also expect General Assembly Republicans to challenge McAuliffe’s legal authority to implement a cap.

Update: Apco spokesman John Shepelwich submits the following correction: “Appalachian Power no longer operates any coal-fueled power generation in Virginia and has not since 2015. Two of the three units of our Clinch River Plant in Russell County were converted from coal to natural gas; that plant is scheduled to be retired in 2026.”

Bristol Home Builder Proposes Solar Subdivision

Developer Aaron Lilly is seeking Bristol planning commission approval to construct 30 upscale townhouses using solar power to offset electric bills. He envisions the project as the first solar-powered subdivision east of the Mississippi, reports the Bristol Herald-Courier.

The project would be built on 12.5 hillside acres near an Interstate 81 exit. The townhomes would have 1,600 square feet of living space plus a 400-square-foot garage. Units can be configured with “smart home” technology for monitoring and control that, among other benefits, can provide medical information to a caregiver. Lilly sees the houses as “age in place” residences. He intends to price the properties in the $200,000 to $250,000 range. Said Lilly:

After seeing solar was at least possible, we’ve been working on this for over a year. It is more affordable than ever before and the price of electricity goes up every year. … There would be two meters on the house – one telling how much power we consume from [Bristol Virginia Utilities] and the other how much power is produced and the person would pay the difference.

If power keeps going up and solar keeps coming down, we’re there. If we’re not there yet, we’re close enough. This is our goal and we’re working feverishly to make sure it happens. … The first ones are an experiment. We don’t know how much power we can make.

Planning commissioners were supportive of the proposal and granted preliminary approval.

Bacon’s bottom line: It’s hard to imagine that this is the first time a developer east of the Mississippi has proposed building new townhouses with solar panels on the roof. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing it in Virginia, so, who knows. If Lilly says it’s true, maybe it is. If so, good for him.

Economically, it may make more sense for home builders to install solar during the construction phase — Lilly will build nine connected units in Phase 1 — than for individual homeowners to outsource the project to solar installers one project at a time. Also, Lilly can pocket the solar credits, which might be worth more to him than to individual homeowners. Another selling point is that homeowners can amortize the construction cost over the life of a 30-year mortgage.

Home builders are always looking for a competitive edge. I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more of this kind of activity.

McAuliffe Signs 11 Renewable Energy Bills into Law

Governor Terry McAuliffe has signed 11 solar and renewable energy bills into law.

Quasi-community solar. The most significant is SB 1393, which creates a mechanism for Dominion, Appalachian power Co. and Virginia’s electric cooperatives to sell solar-generated electricity to subscribers. While the law does not provide everything that solar enthusiasts would like, it does open up economic space for more local, small-scale solar development, and it provides consumers a green-energy option they didn’t have before.

Agricultural solar. HB 2303 and SB 1394 create a framework whereby farms can generate renewable energy and sell it to utilities.

Energy-efficiency. HB 1565 allows localities to establish “green development zones” providing special zoning and tax treatment for buildings and facilities that are deemed to be energy efficient or manufacture products beneficial to the environment.

Battery storage. SB 1258 expands the mission of the Virginia Solar Energy Development Authority to include promotion of battery storage technology.

The Fauquier Times enumerates all 11 bills here.