New Hampshire is becoming a renewable energy leader in the Northeast thanks to increasingly progressive energy policies and generous incentives for solar installations.

Homeowners have been able to enjoy a $3/watt system rebate up to $6,000, which takes a big bite out of the cost of a solar electric system and brings the ‘simple’ return on the system to under 7 years in many cases (see more on solar electric ROI).

However, in a recent order of notice (DE10-194 – full details here (PDF)), New Hampshire’s Public Utilities Commission has proposed reducing the rebate from $3/watt, $6,000 max to $1.5/watt, $3,000 max.

Here’s an explanation:

The incentive payments are funded through the Renewable Energy Fund (REF), which is supported by alternative compliance payments (ACPs) made by electric service providers who cannot meet their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations through the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) …

the REF [has] an uncommitted balance of approximately $1.5 million. Given that the small residential renewable incentive program experiences an average of 20 incentive applications per month, totaling an average of $12,800 per month in incentive payments, or, $1.5 million annually, and assuming this rate of participation will continue at that level, the fund could be exhausted by this program before the end of fiscal year 2011 and would likely exceed the portion of funding that should go to residential programs …

Based on these factors, the Commission proposes to halve the incentive payment to $1.50 per watt and the per-system maximum to $3,000 for small residential electrical renewable energy facilities. Lowering the incentive payment and per-facility maximum amount will allow for the same number of systems that are currently processed for rebates to be eligible for incentives, thus providing continued business for installers of small residential renewable generation systems.

While it’s encouraging to see the PUC concerned about the long-term longevity of the program, we’re dismayed to see such a severe cut in the cash rebate proposed.

Luckily, there’s still time to chime in publicly about the proposed changes. A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, September 1, 10AM at the Public Utilities Commission, 21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord, N.H. 03301-2429 (Map and Directions).

Want to go solar now?  Contact us for a free site evaluation and we’ll help get your paperwork into the State before the incentive is decreased.

Commercial Rebates on the Way

In another bit of encouraging news, there is motion to create commercial, nonprofit and municipal solar incentives for both solar electricity and solar hot water.

We attended a technical session on August 19 to review the PUC’s renewable energy rebate design considerations. There is an additional opportunity for public comment on August 30 at 10AM and opportunity for written comment until Sept 3.

There may still be changes yet, but the suggestions under consideration:

• the… incentive payment for PV systems will begin at $1.25 per Watt for the first 20 kW and would decline to $1.00 per Watt for the next 35 kW and to $0.75/Watt from 55 kW up to 100 kW. In addition, the C&I rebate for a PV system would be capped at 25% of the cost of the facility, or $50,000, whichever is less. The $50,000 cap would be reached at a system size of45 kW under these incentive levels.

• The [solar hot water] base rebate would be $0.07 per rated or modeled kBtu/year, capped at 25% of the cost of the facility or $50,000, whichever is less, as a one-time incentive payment.

Details in the full order of notice (PDF).

We’ll be attending this session and will write up the results and likely changes as soon as we have more details!

This NREL map shows the states in the United States where feed in tariff legislation has been passed – only 14 states so far

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has released the largest report on feed in tariffs ever produced by a US Government Agency.

The 144 page document, called A Policymaker’s Guide to Feed-in Tariff Policy Design (PDF Download), analyzes the results of Feed in Tariff legislation in over 75 countries, including the efforts so far in the United States.

What is a Feed in Tariff and Why Should I Care?

A Feed in Tariff (FiT) is an alternative to taxpayer-subsidized incentives for renewable energy programs. With a FiT, the government mandates electric utilities to pay a certain above-market rate for electricity generated by net-producers. Meaning, an individual with a good solar location can install solar panels and turn a profit.

There are a number of reasons that a FiT is more effective than cash and tax incentives towards spurring renewable growth:

• The FiT is a performance based incentive – Quality of system design and performance is determined based on a need for return on investment.
• The FiT does not depend on taxes – Since incentives rely on tax money, at some point those coffers will empty and the incentives run out.  A FiT can be financed many ways, usually in the electric market. This takes a burden off of strapped state and federal budgets, and permits renewable growth to scale.
• The FiT offers a predictable return on investment – Solar energy systems offer a predictable rate of production whose value increases as the cost of electricity increases. Given the state of the economy, a renewable investment can be more secure than the stock market!

Key Findings of the Report

The NREL report does a good job of debunking feed in tariff myths, while also critically examining policy challenges faced abroad. Some of their more interesting findings:

• “FITs are responsible for approximately 75% of global PV and 45% of global wind deployment” (5)
• “The arguments in favor of a FIT policy are primarily economic in nature. These include the ability to … stimulate significant and quantifiable growth of local industry and job creation … [and] only cost money if projects actually operate” (27)
• “RE developers benefit from the long-term stability of the revenue streams generated from electricity sales, which helps foster a high level of investment security.” (121)
• “Another benefit is the direct competition for market share that is occurring under FIT policies in countries such as Germany, France, and Spain. This can drive greater private R&D investment, while helping spur further innovation and technological cost reduction” (121)

The report cites a number of primary, secondary, and tertiary benefits (pg. 18-20) for growing the renewable energy with FiT policies, such as:

• Increasing local jobs and developing the economy
• Reducing greenhouse gases
• Displacing load (to phase out coal fired power plants)
• Peak shaving (i.e. reducing the peak load conditions which CMP cites as the reason for the $1.4 billion grid upgrade)

The report then goes on to discuss in great detail the pros and cons of different models of feed in tariffs and the variety of ways they can be made into policy. Variations include payouts based on fixed rate prices vs. premium rates which fluctuate based on the market, to sliding scale rates based on economic conditions and those that vary based on resource quality and location.

You can read this in-depth report for free. (PDF Download)

Will a Feed In Tariff Make it to Maine (and New Hampshire)?

If you’ve been following our blog for a while, you’ve seen our coverage of Maine’s own attempt to establish feed in tariff, which was voted unanimously “Ought Not To Pass” in May, 2009.

A watered down version of the bill, providing for pilot community-owned electricity generation with caps on tariff payouts, was later passed in June 2009. The Midcoast Green Collaborative has a great write-up of the legislation as well as a history of Maine’s slow road towards a feed-in tariff.

For the moment, no concrete, meaningful feed in tariff legislation for Maine homeowners is on the horizon.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire has just passed legislation that will require utilities to pay customers that are net-generators of electricity for their surplus.

The rates to be paid for this electricity are yet to be determined – whether they are truly market rates or a lesser “avoided costs” rate, but should the legislation be successful in spurring renewable energy growth it is possible that true feed in tariff legislation will follow.

We’ll keep you posted as feed in tariff legislation continues to develop in Northeast!

Special thanks to Clean Technica and Renewable Energy World for information about this new NREL report.

More Reading

Learn more about feed-in-tariffs and how other states and countries are using them to move solar energy forward:

• Hawaii feed-in tariff decision to open clean energy market
• Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover (NY Times)
• Tripling of Solar Jobs in the UK this Year due to FIT?
• Feed-in tariff for alternative energy

As of Earth Day 2010, New Hampshire now offers a state solar hot water rebate program, which averages $1,500 for a typical residential solar hot water system.

This program is comparable to Maine’s existing $1,500 rebate – now it doesn’t matter which side of the mighty Piscataqua you’re on – renewable energy makes more sense than ever!

How the Rebate Works

The rebate is on a sliding scale based on BTU output of the system under peak solar conditions. The average rebate of $1,500 is for a typical family of four – larger systems qualify for up to $1,650 towards a system.

A few piece of fine print – the rebate can only be used for a primary residence in New Hampshire and can only be used for retrofits (no new homes – however, solar hot water for a new home is still a great investment because of the incredible life of the energy efficiency upgrades).

What Does a System Cost?

This new state rebate is in addition to a 30% uncapped federal tax credit. The net system budget for a typical 4-person household looks like this:

$11,000 gross installed cost
-($3,300) fed tax credit
-($1,500) state rebate
$6,200 net investment

Here are estimated payback periods for a 4-person system at different prices for heating oil:

Solar Hot Water ROI (Based on Price of Oil)

Compared to electric water heating, a solar hot water system will save roughly 3,540 lbs of C02 from entering the atmosphere each year.

Get Started

Curious whether solar hot water is a good match for your New Hampshire home? ReVision is happy to offer a free solar site evaluation is the first step towards securing the state rebate.

In addition to answering any of your questions about solar, we review your home and site and help determine where a solar energy system would fit in. Several pieces of site data are required to qualify for the state rebate and we’ll collect all of those while we’re at your home.

Contact us or call our New Hampshire office (603) 501-1822 for more information.

Janet Ward, a friend of ReVision Energy in Concord, New Hampshire, recently alerted us to some questionable legislation making its way through the New Hampshire State Senate.

Bill SB 334, which states that it is “encouraging the installation and use of small scale renewable energy resources by homeowners and businesses,” is coming under fire because it would allow Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to divert $5 million of money that should purchase renewable energy credits for a single solar development project in Manchester.

As reported from the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association:

PSNH is asking the New Hampshire House of Representatives for permission to fund a single solar energy project in Manchester with funds it is supposed to use to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates or pay into the State’s Renewable Energy Fund(REF).

The REF funds are intended to be available throughout the State for renewable energy projects to benefit residents, small businesses, and municipalities. The funds are vital to the small businesses which are building New Hampshire’s green economy.

The PSNH project, funded via the RPS program, undermines investment in New Hampshire’s small business future.

The bit of legislation that is causing the controversy:

In lieu of PSNH making payments under RSA 362-F:10 for class II electric renewable energy standard obligations or purchasing certificates, as defined in RSA 362-F:2, III, to comply with RSA 362-F class II electric renewable energy standard obligations, beginning upon the effective date of this act PSNH shall retain such payments and utilize $5,000,000 of such amounts to invest in the development of the solar photovoltaic renewable energy project in Manchester. The amounts retained by PSNH shall be used to amortize the outstanding capital investment for the project. When the nominal payments retained by PSNH equal $5,000,000, PSNH shall return to routine compliance with RSA 362-F:10 for going-forward class II electric renewable energy standard obligations.

What This Means

Under current law, the $5,000,000 would go towards the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (the Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS) or pay into the New Hampshire’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF).

According to The Green Energy Times, “The REF funds are intended to be available throughout the State for renewable energy projects which benefit residents, small businesses, and municipalities. The funds are vital to the small businesses which are building New Hampshire’s green economy.”

In other words, the act would allow PSNH to create their own special project and avoid the current process, which incentivizes small businesses and entrepreneurs to create renewable energy projects, and drives a competitive renewable energy marketplace.

RPS requires New Hampshire to generate 16 percent of new energy from renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass and hydro by 2025, and Renewable Energy World predicts New Hampshire’s energy will be 22-25% renewable by 2025 should the effort be successful.

Performance requirements for the PSNH project are not defined in the bill, though there is some verbiage in the Bill that suggests that performance of the PSNH project would be subject to review.

Opponents to SB 334 claim that the RPS program has led to regular employment for 126 electricians and solar installers and grants for more than 270 renewable energy projects across New Hampshire. In contrast, they claim that the PSNH project will create only five full jobs a year, “at a cost of $1 million per full-time position.”

What You Can Do

ReVision Energy encourages you to read about the legislation and then take action – there is a great amount of information as well as links to newspaper articles and opinion pieces at http://www.nhsea.org/public-policy.php.

You can contact members of the New Hampshire House Science, Energy and Technology Committee via e-mail: HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us or visit the New Hampshire House website for for complete contact information for the Committee.

Most importantly, you can attend the Committee’s Public Hearing on SB 334, which will be held this Thursday, April 15 at 1pm in room 304 of the Legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street, Concord, New Hampshire (map and directions).

It’s tax time, and while that’s a cause for groans from many, you can be happy if you finished installation of a solar energy system in 2009!

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was greatly enhanced in February 2009 by the federal stimulus plan, which eliminated a $2,000 cap on the federal tax rebate for solar electric systems. The current federal tax credit for solar hot water and solar electric is 30%, with no upper limit.

Unlike state cash rebates, you apply for the federal tax credit when you submit your regular 2009 personal income taxes.

Here’s a link to the IRS Form 5695 that you’ll need (PDF): http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf.

While ReVision Energy can’t offer you tax advice, we encourage you to read up about the tax credit at DSIRE and consult with your tax advisor about the best way to file for the tax credit.

Also, this act has been extended through 2016, so you have time in 2010 to take advantage of this great incentive!

Contact us with any questions you have about solar rebates.

Last week, ReVision Energy attended and exhibited at the first annual Maine Association of Building Efficiency Professionals (MABEP) Training Conference.

The Conference featured training panels on a variety of renewable energy and efficiency topics, including solar power and solar hot water, new construction building science, advanced energy auditing and commercial building energy efficiency.

One of the panels that most interested us was with Dr. Richard Silkman, who is a major force behind the GridSolar project.

What Is GridSolar?

We asked Dr. Silkman to explain:

That link to learn more about GridSolar is www.gridsolarme.com.  ReVision Energy heartily supports this project and hope that Maine is given the opportunity to lead the nation in this SmartGrid transmission project.

I recently had the opportunity to meet Senator Susan Collin’s energy policy expert, Amy Carroll. At the meeting was Richard Silkman of GridSolar. There I learned about what GridSolar is up to, and what it’s up against.

GridSolar has submitted an alternative proposal to CMP’s $1.4 billion dollar proposal to increase the transmission corridors in Maine.

Projections show that as demand increases for electricity, Maine will experience brownouts during periods of peak demand over the coming decade. To address this concern, CMP has proposed Bigger Wires to move electricity around the state and avoid problems like brownouts.

These bigger wires would come at a big cost, $1.4 billion on the backs of ratepayers, as well as much wider corridors than today. Perhaps the biggest cost of all is what it is we’re buying into. If we purchase these transmission corridors, we will be compelled to use them. This will result in much less incentive to conserve, to produce our own energy, or to implement smart grid technology.

GridSolar has offered a very interesting alternative. For less money, they’ll ensure that we don’t face rolling brownouts, AND, we’ll get clean, renewable solar electricity out of the deal. Rather than expand transmission facilities, they would install fields of solar electric arrays that would feed into the grid. The beauty of this concept is that maximum solar electricity production roughly matches peak demand (both occur on the sunniest days of the summer), so the solar electricity would not only avoid brownouts, but would also lessen our overall need for fossil fuel electricity.

No one doubts that GridSolar’s plan would result in grid dependability. No one doubts that it’s less expensive. The big challenge with the proposal is that CMP’s proposal would only cost the state 8% of the project total because it would be funded through ISO New England.

While that sounds like a great deal for Mainers, it is a serious problem. True, we only pay 8% of the cost for our transmission upgrades, but we also pay 8% of the cost of Massachusetts’ upgrades. We don’t get to vote on the MA decisions, and MA does not vote on ours. This communist era funding mechanism allows the people who decide to put in transmission capacity to only pay a fraction of the real cost, and it creates a huge incentive to make power lines that no one really needs. As Richard Silkman said; “If every school district were offered 92% funding to put up a Giraffe farm, there would be a Giraffe farm in every district.”

This is crazy. At a time when we need more than ever to invest in renewable energy, conservation, and smart grid technology, the cards are stacked in favor of even bigger wires. Wires that we pay for, ultimately, and that keep us from making the important investments that will keep the lights on AND save the planet. Tell your friends and your elected officials, particularly Snowe and Collins, that we don’t want bigger wires feeding an ever bigger habit, but that now is the time to start weaning ourselves from the habit, every way we can.

UPDATE: We had a chance to interview Dr. Richard Silkman at MABEP’s training conference, Jan 2010.  View the video!

Instead of waiting until tax time, business owners are now able to receive a cash grant for solar energy systems in lieu of the 30% tax credit.

The program is available for solar hot water and solar electric systems placed in service during 2009 or 2010, or after 2010 if construction began on the property during 2009 or 2010.

An online grant application is available at www.treasury.gov/recovery.

Applications can be submitted after the system is placed in service, or the building is under construction. All applications must be received before the statutory deadline of October 1, 2011. The Treasury will review the applications and make payments to qualified applicants within 60 days after the completed application is received.

To learn more go to Treasury Recovery. Please contact your local ReVision Energy office to learn how you can take advantage of this powerful renewable energy incentive and turn your roof space into a revenue stream!