POLITICAL BARRIERS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SOLAR IN THE
SUNSHINE STATE
by
Debra Taylor
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Wilkes Honors College
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science
Wilkes Honors College of
Florida Atlantic University
Jupiter, FL
August 2017
POLITICAL BARRIERS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SOLAR IN THE SUNSHINE STATE
by
Debra Taylor
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. William O’Brien, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
______Dr. William O’Brien
______Dr. Kanybek Nur-tegin
______Dean Dr. Ellen Goldey, Wilkes Honors College
______Date
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I’d to thank my academic/thesis/life advisor, Dr. William O’Brien. Without his assistance, encouragement and dedicated involvement in every step of this process, this paper would never have been accomplished. I would like to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your patience, support and understanding over these past two years.
I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Wairimũ Njambi, who challenged me to keep pushing through every obstacle, assuring me that the struggle is both the process and the reward. Your mentorship and inspirational teaching style made my experience at the Honors College truly unforgettable. I am forever grateful for your kindness and encouragement.
A special thank you to Dr. Kanybek Nur-tegin for serving on my supervisory committee and providing valuable inputs and words of encouragement. I greatly appreciate your support and well wishes.
Getting through my undergraduate thesis required more than academic support, and I have many people to thank for listening to and, at times, having to tolerate me over the past two years. Thomas Venables, Emma Yasinski, Veena Krishnappa, Siddaraju Boregowda and Jenn Olson have been unwavering in their personal and professional support during my time at the Honors College. I cannot begin to express my gratitude and appreciation for your friendship.
I would like to thank my partner, Keith Lizotte, for providing me with unlimited inspiration and encouragement throughout this entire process. Your high-fives, hugs and delicious grilled cheese sandwiches were absolutely invaluable to me. Thank you for always making me laugh when I wanted to cry.
Most importantly, none of this could have happened without the support from my family. I would like to thank my mom and dad for always believing in me and for feeding me when I was broke. I love you both more than words can express. I’d also like to thank Jeff, Tracey, Alexis, Aiden and Ashton for their encouragement and for understanding when I had to put homework and thesis before family fun. I love you all. And finally, I have to thank my dog, Jake, who passed away just weeks before I finished. You were the best friend a girl could ask for and your unconditional love and warmth helped carry me through the most difficult of times. Rest in peace, dear friend.
iii ABSTRACT
Author: Debra Taylor
Title: Political Barriers to Distributed Generation Solar in the Sunshine State
Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University
Advisor: Dr. William O’Brien
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences
Concentrations: Environmental Science
Year: 2017
Scientists agree that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy, is a major contributor to climate change. Recent global efforts to curb climate change involve the investment in carbon-cutting renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. Despite being known as “the Sunshine State,” only 0.26% of Florida’s energy production came from solar sources in 2016. Florida ranks third in the U.S. for rooftop solar potential but only twelfth in the cumulative amount of solar capacity installed. Distributed generation (DG) solar refers to electricity generated near the point- of-use via photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, which includes rooftop solar. Distributed solar remains a controversial topic in Florida. This study attempts to identify the political barriers to distributed generation solar in Florida and examines the connection between political ideology and the success rate of renewable energy legislation in Florida.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction……………………………………………………….………...……..1
Solar Defined…………………………………………………………………...... 2
DG Solar Controversy……………………………………………………………..3
Solar Production Trends…………………………………………………………...6
Solar Costs and Job Creation………………………………………………………8
Political Barriers to Distributed Generation Solar………………………………..11
2. Florida Solar Energy Landscape…………………………………………………13
Net Metering and Grid Interconnection………………………………………….14
Renewable Portfolio Standards…………………………………………………..16
Third-Party Financing: PPAs and Solar Leases……………...………………….17
3. Political Ideology and Renewable Energy Policy………………………………..20
The Florida Legislature…………………………………………….…………….21
4. Florida Solar Legislation Study……………...……………………..……………23
My Expectations…………………………………………………………………24
The Data……………………………………………………………………….…25
Understanding the Trends……………………………………………….……….28
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….33
6. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………35
7. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..38
v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: U.S. Primary Energy Production, by Source (2016)……….……………...7
Figure 2: State Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies…………………………….17
Table 1: Summary of Florida Solar Legislation (2006-2016)…………………..…25
Figure 3: Florida Solar Energy Legislation Submitted, by Type (2006-2016)…….26
Figure 4: Status of Submitted Solar Legislation, By Year (2006-2016)…………...27
Figure 5: Florida Solar Legislation Submitted, by Party and Type (2006-2016)…..27
Figure 6: Florida Solar Legislation Signed into Law, by Type (2006-2016)………28
vi 1. Introduction
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international organization charged with assessing the science related to climate change,
“anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the pre-industrial era have driven large increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O),” which scientists agree are primary contributors to global warming (IPCC, 2014). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes the causes, trends, and impacts of global warming. The average temperature of the planet has risen an estimated 1.5°F in the last century and is projected to rise another
0.5 to 8.6°F in the coming century, a pattern that could lead to profound and potentially catastrophic changes in climate and weather. Already, changes in precipitation have resulted in increases in floods, droughts, and heat waves, and a combination of ocean warming and glacier melt has led to rising sea levels. While deforestation, industrial activities, and certain agricultural processes contribute to rising atmospheric GHG levels, the majority of emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy (EPA
2017).
Transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, biomass, geothermal, wind, ocean, and solar energy, reduces GHG emissions by displacing electricity derived from carbon-emitting fossil fuels. According to the Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA), solar energy, derived from the sun, is “the cleanest and most abundant renewable energy source available” (SEIA 2017). This study examines the status of solar energy in Florida, which currently ranks third in the U.S. for rooftop solar potential but only twelfth in cumulative solar capacity installed (SEIA 2017). More
1 specifically, this research attempts to identify the political barriers to distributed generation solar in Florida and to examine the connection between political ideology and the success rate of renewable energy legislation in the state. In pursuit of this goal, a list of solar-related legislation introduced in the Florida legislature between 2006 and 2016 was compiled and analyzed for potential trends and insights regarding the state of solar energy in Florida today.
Solar Defined
Solar energy is energy harnessed from the Sun’s radiation, which is converted either into useful heat, via a solar thermal energy system, or into electricity, via a solar photovoltaic (PV) energy system. Concentrating solar power (CSP), which uses mirrors or lenses to reflect and focus sunlight onto a single point for heating purposes, is the primary type of solar thermal energy system utilized in the U.S. Photovoltaic solar energy systems convert solar radiation directly into electricity, usually by utilizing silicon panels that produce an electrical current when sunlight hits them (Penn State Extension
2017). According to the U.S. Department of Energy, PV solar panels placed on just 0.6% of the nation’s total land area could supply enough electricity to power the entire U.S.
Additionally, seven southwestern states have the technical potential and land area to site enough CSP to supply more than four times the current U.S. annual electricity demand
(U.S. Department of Energy 2017).
Solar power can be generated both at the utility-scale or on-site. Utility-scale solar involves the construction of large solar arrays or CSP systems in a centralized location, which generate electricity to be transported, via power lines, to end-users some distance away. Alternatively, solar power can be produced via distributed generation
2 (DG), which refers to electricity produced at or close to the site at which it is used.
Rooftop solar PV panels are the primary means of generating DG solar, though ground- mounted solar PV panels and distributed generation CSP are also used. Electricity generated at utility-scale solar facilities often travels long distances along power lines to reach end users, resulting in power lost during transmission. Since DG solar power is produced close to where it is consumed, the distance the electricity has to travel is decreased, resulting in less transmission loss (SEIA 2017).
DG Solar Controversy
Distributed generation solar has been a topic of much debate in recent years, primarily between solar users and electric utility companies. In 2015, for example,
Florida utility companies reportedly spent over $20 million dollars supporting the adoption of a constitutional amendment, Amendment 1, aimed at inhibiting rooftop solar growth in the state. According to Chris Delp, a Tampa-based attorney assisting with the development of a solar farm in Leesburg, Amendment 1 brought “the discussion of solar energy development in Florida to the forefront” (Klas 2016). Ultimately, utility-backed
Amendment 1 was defeated, but not before voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment
4, which extended a residential renewable energy tax credit to commercial and industrial users (Klas 2016). DG solar results in decreased customer demand for energy provided by an electric utility. Instead of acquiring electricity from their local utility, customers can fill an increasingly larger share of their energy needs from a rooftop solar energy system, leading to revenue losses for utilities (Helman 2015). This trend has led to an increasing number of appeals from electric utility companies for regulators to remove net metering mandates. Net metering is a billing mechanism utilized by electric utilities in
3 which customers generating electricity via a renewable energy source device, such as a rooftop solar PV system, will be credited, at retail rates, for the excess energy they produce. Essentially, customers will be billed only for the net amount of energy they use.
Net metering provides an incentive for electricity customers to install DG solar devices because it enables them to sell the excess electricity they generate back to the utility company, thereby lowering their utility bills (SEIA 2017).
A study published by Blackburn, Magee and Rai (2014) describes the net metering controversy in more detail. Solar power generation requires direct sunlight, so
DG solar customers usually rely on their electric utility company for backup power when the sun is not shining or when their full electricity needs are not met by the DG system.
In this sense, DG solar customers receive the benefit of power reliability by being connected to the electric grid. The utilities that operate and maintain the electric grid face fixed costs related to generation capacity, transmission line installation and maintenance, and the ancillary and stabilizing services provided by the grid throughout the day.
Additionally, there may be system upgrade costs associated with integrating solar technology into grid infrastructure. These costs are typically recovered, in part, through a fixed charge on all customer energy bills, with the balance being recovered through volumetric charges based on each customer’s energy consumption. Customers utilizing
DG solar, however, “offset these volumetric charges, which result in infrastructure costs that go unpaid” by DG solar customers (Blackburn, Magee and Rai 2014, 19). Therefore, utilities argue that crediting DG solar customers at retail rates is essentially subsidizing solar customers because they are receiving the benefits of being connected to the power
4 grid but not paying their fair portion of the fixed costs related to grid maintenance and rate recovery (Blackburn, Magee and Rai 2014, 21).
Proponents of DG solar reject this argument and claim DG solar provides infrastructure benefits related to both generation and transmission capacity, particularly during times of peak power procurement. Peak electricity demand often coincides with peak solar generation times, meaning DG solar generation could help stabilize the grid by reducing strain on utilities during peak demand times. Furthermore, increased DG solar generation may allow utilities to forgo construction of additional costly power generation facilities to keep up with increasing electricity demands, saving utilities money
(Blackburn, Magee and Rai 2014, 21).
Recently, there have been substantial legislative and regulatory commission efforts aimed at shifting more of the costs of distributed generation back onto DG solar customers. For example, in 2013 the Arizona Corporation Commission authorized
Arizona Public Service, the largest electric utility in Arizona, to charge standby fees to residential solar customers. The standby fee is a fixed amount charged to solar customers for providing backup services when their DG systems are not producing sufficient electricity. This tactic elicited mixed responses. Arizona Public Service proposed a standby fee of $50 to $100 for DG solar customers but were authorized by the state’s regulator to charge only around $5 per DG solar household. Still, this seemingly small fee cuts into solar customers’ savings and serves as a disincentive for other customers considering installing DG solar systems (Blackburn, Magee and Rai 2014, 22).
Similar attempts to minimize the financial impact of net metering on electric utilities have taken place in Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and Virginia with varying
5 results. In 2009, Xcel Energy proposed a standby fee of around $23 be charged to solar customers in Colorado but public backlash caused Xcel to rescind the proposal. A similar proposal was made by Public Service of New Mexico in 2011, with the same result. In 2013, Idaho Power Company was denied authorization, by the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission, to increase monthly fees for solar customers. Virginia’s Dominion
Power had better luck when it received authorization, in 2012, to charge standby fees up to $60 to certain solar DG customers. Additional ongoing efforts and proposals aimed at easing the cost burden of DG solar on electric utilities include net metering caps, which limit the size of DG systems authorized to be net metered, and “rate design mechanisms such as time of use pricing, flat fees, and demand charges” (Blackburn, Magee and Rai
2014, 22).
Solar Production Trends
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides estimates and figures regarding U.S. energy production. In 2016, approximately 12.1% of primary energy produced in the U.S. came from renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, hydroelectric, and biomass, which represents a 1.3% increase from 2015. Solar energy represented nearly 0.7% of total U.S. energy production in 2016, up from 0.5% the previous year. Figure 1 details U.S. primary energy production by source in 2016. In regard to percentage of electricity produced from solar sources per state, California leads the nation at 13.21%, while Nevada, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Arizona follow at
7.31%, 5.68%, 5.61%, and 4.90%, respectively. Despite boasting the nickname “the
Sunshine State,” only 0.26% of Florida’s energy production came from solar sources in
2016 (EIA 2017).
6 The EIA website lists only utility-scale solar generation estimates for the U.S. for
2013 and earlier. Estimates for 2014 and 2015, however, include distributed generation solar estimates, as well. In both 2014 and 2015, approximately 92% of net solar generation in the U.S., including both utility-scale and DG solar, came from photovoltaic solar panels, while the remaining 8% came from utility-scale solar thermal systems. In
2014, roughly 42% of total solar PV generation came from distributed generation systems while the remaining 58% came from utility-scale solar PV systems. In 2015, however, only 39% of total solar PV generation came from distributed systems and the remaining
61% came from utility-scale solar PV systems. While the total amount of solar generated from both distributed PV and utility-scale PV increased from 2014 to 2015, the percentage provided by utility-scale PV was higher in 2015 than in the previous year.
This means that utility-scale solar PV generation increased at a faster rate than distributed generation solar PV during that time period (EIA 2017).
Figure 1: U.S. Primary Energy Production, by Source (2016) Hydro, 2.9% Geothermal, 0.3% Nuclear, 10% Solar, 0.7% Wind, 2.5% Natural Gas, Biomass, 5.6% 38%
Coal, 18%
Oil, 22%
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017.
7
Florida is the second largest electricity producer in the U.S., with Texas ranking first and California third, yet Florida still imports electricity from neighboring states to meet demand. Florida ranks in the top one-fourth of states in per capita residential electricity consumption, with over half of Florida’s electricity utilized to power homes.
As of January 2017, Florida’s net electricity generation, by source, is as follows: natural gas, 61.6%; coal, 19.2%, nuclear, 15.9%, petroleum, 0.2%, hydroelectric, 0.1%, and non- hydroelectric renewables, 3%. A majority of Florida’s renewable-derived electricity comes from biomass, while solar represents less than one-tenth of Florida’s net renewable energy generation. Combined utility-scale and DG solar represented only
0.26% of Florida’s total energy generation in 2016 (EIA 2016).
Solar Costs and Job Creation
For solar to gain widespread adoption and market share, solar energy must be offered at rates competitive with traditional energy sources, such as coal and natural gas.
In pursuit of making solar electricity cost-competitive with conventional energy, without subsidies, the U.S. Department of Energy introduced the SunShot Initiative in 2011. The primary stated goal was to reduce the cost of solar PV and CSP energy systems by 75 percent, from 2010 levels, across all sectors by 2020. Projections suggested that achieving these price-reduction targets could result in 14% of U.S. electricity demand being met by solar by 2030 and up to 27% by 2050. In 2015, halfway to the 2020 target date, the Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) launched On the Path to SunShot, a series of technical reports aimed at assessing the progress of the SunShot Initiative and examining key issues that still needed to be addressed (Chung, Horowitz and Kurup
2016, iii).
8 One report in the series, Emerging Opportunities and Challenges in U.S. Solar
Manufacturing, reviews recent developments and trends in the solar PV and CSP markets. The U.S. has seen a greater than tenfold increase in solar installations from
2011 to 2016. At the same time, solar’s levelized cost of energy (LCOE) has dropped by up to 65% (Chung, Horowitz and Kurup 2016, iv). The levelized cost of energy is an assessment of the total cost of installing and operating a solar energy system, including costs related to financing, taxes, maintenance, and incentives, “expressed in dollars per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by the system over its life” (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory 2017). While solar costs have lowered significantly over the last five years, and are predicted to continue falling, the report notes that incentives still drive the market for solar PV. Because solar affordability is still contingent upon incentives, “cost pressures will remain on PV prices at every level—product, installation, operations and maintenance—until the industry can sustainably produce energy at prices competitive with incumbent generation sources without subsidy” (Chung, Horowitz and Kurup 2016,
15).
A 2016 Solar Industry Update released by Feldman, Boff and Margolis revealed that, despite the downward trend in solar costs, the price of residential systems in the
United States remains much higher than in much of the world, including Europe, China,
India and Japan. Pricing for U.S. utility-scale projects is also higher than global averages but the gap in pricing between the U.S. and the global average is much smaller than in the residential sector. Differences in non-hardware costs were cited as the primary difference in distributed PV system pricing (Feldman, Boff and Margolis 2016, 33). While increased global production has led to solar panel costs dropping more than 60% since
9 2010, the non-hardware costs, or soft costs, associated with going solar, are not decreasing as quickly as hardware costs. Soft costs, which include costs related to permitting, financing, new customer acquisition, and installing solar, currently comprise up to 64% of the total price of DG solar systems. These soft costs are “tacked-on to the overall price a customer pays for a solar energy system,” making residential DG solar less affordable (Ulrich 2016). The relationship between renewable energy legislation and
DG solar soft costs will be discussed in a subsequent section.
Another important factor affecting DG solar growth is the demand for skilled workers in the solar industry. The Solar Foundation releases an annual census report containing updates on employment, trends, and projected growth in the U.S. solar industry. The 2016 Solar Jobs Census revealed that were 260,077 solar workers in the
U.S. in 2016. Furthermore, U.S. solar employment had increased by 25%, around 51,000 workers, over the previous year. Overall, the solar industry was responsible for 2% of all new U.S. jobs added in 2016. In 2017, solar industry employment is expected to increase by 10%, adding another 286,335 solar workers (The Solar Foundation 2017).
In 2016, Florida ranked fifth in the nation in number of solar jobs, behind
California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Nevada. The Solar Jobs Census reported 8,260 solar jobs in Florida in 2016, up from 6,560 in 2015. This represents a 26% increase in one year. Furthermore, the census recorded more than 450 solar companies operating in the various sectors of the solar industry in Florida. Nearly half of these companies are categorized as “contractor/installers” while others are engaged in solar-related activities such as manufacturing, project development, distribution, engineering, finance, and legal support (The Solar Foundation 2017).
10 Political Barriers to Distributed Generation Solar
There are many political factors that can affect distributed generation (DG) solar adoption and the policies affecting solar energy production and distribution vary widely by state. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a non-profit, national trade association representing pro-solar organizations and production companies across the country, describes some of the issues affecting DG solar adoption. One factor that can increase DG solar installations is the implementation of net metering policies, allowing solar customers to receive credit for the excess energy they produce. As discussed earlier, electric utilities tend to oppose adoption of net metering policies, making net metering a contentious political issue. Complex and/or expensive grid interconnection standards, which list requirements for connecting energy generation devices to the electric grid, can serve as a barrier to DG solar. Grid interconnection standards apply to both electric utilities and electric customers and vary widely at both the state and local level. A third factor affecting DG solar adoption is the availability of third-party financing, which can make installing solar PV panels more affordable. Third-party financing for solar energy systems is normally provided via a power purchase agreement
(PPA) or via a solar lease. With a PPA, a solar energy system is installed on the customer’s property at no cost and the company that installed the system “sells the power generated to the customer at a fixed rate, typically lower than the local utility” (SEIA
2017). With a solar lease, rather than purchasing energy from the company that installs the solar energy system, the customer signs a contract with a third-party owner to pay for the system over a set amount of time and then purchases energy from their local electric utility, as usual. Finally, adoption of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which
11 requires electric utilities to “source a certain amount of the energy they generate or sell from renewable sources such as wind and solar,” can increase DG solar adoption in a state (SEIA 2017).
12 2. Florida’s Solar Energy Landscape
Florida statute tasks the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) with the regulation of public utilities under its jurisdiction. To achieve this goal, the FPSC establishes utility service territories, regulates the rates and profits of utilities, exercises safety authority over all electric operating systems in Florida, and requires utilities to provide service to all customers in their area who request it. In 2016, the FPSC regulated five investor-owned electric companies, including Florida Power & Light (FPL), Duke
Energy Florida, Tampa Electric Company, Gulf Power Company, and Florida Public
Utilities Company. While the FPSC “does not regulate the rates and service quality of publicly owned municipal or cooperative electric utilities,…[it] does have jurisdiction regarding rate structure, territorial boundaries, bulk power supply operations, and power supply planning over 35 municipally owned electric systems and 18 rural electric cooperatives” (Florida Public Service Commission 2017). Florida law currently allows only electric utility providers “to sell electricity in the retail market” (Holt and Galligan
2015, 67). In what may be characterized “as the traditional public utility model,” Florida electric utilities are “authorized to own both centralized and distributed generation facilities, and are obligated to provide service to anyone in their service territories at regulated prices” (Holt and Galligan 2015, 68).
Florida Power & Light (FPL), a subsidiary of Next Era Energy, is the third largest electric utility provider in the U.S. In 2016, FPL built three 74.5 megawatt PV solar centers in the state, each expected to generate enough power for roughly 15,000 homes, and plans to build an additional eight PV solar centers by 2018, enough to power roughly
120,000 Florida homes total (Florida Power & Light 2017). Even with the recent and
13 planned large-scale solar installations, FPL still relies largely on natural gas to power the
35 Florida counties under its jurisdiction. During 2015, FPL served nearly 4,800,000 customers with energy generated at “four nuclear units, four coal units, 15 combined cycle (CC) units, five fossil steam units, 47 combustion gas turbines, two simple cycle combustion turbines, and two photovoltaic facilities” (Florida Power & Light 2016, 13).
Natural gas provided 14,844 MW of FPL’s 25,253 MW power generation, roughly
58.8%, while nuclear provided 3,453 MW and coal provided 1,138 MW, 13.7% and 4.5
%, respectively. Solar provided only 35 MW, or 0.1% percent (Florida Power & Light
2016, 15).
Net Metering and Grid Interconnection
The most common state-level interconnection policy model for distributed solar is net metering. Forty-four states, including Florida, have net-metering policies in place but these policies vary widely. Some states, such as New Jersey, structure their net metering policy so that customers are paid the full retail value for the energy they add to the grid.
Others pay customers the same wholesale rate that utilities pay large power producers.
Either way, having net metering policies in place generally increases “the attractiveness of investing in distributed generation by helping commercial and industrial end users defray the cost of the investment” (Sullivan et al. 2014, 25).
Florida statute governing net-metering of customer-owned renewable generation requires electric utilities to offer a purchase contract to customer-generators to buy their excess energy for a period of at least 10 years. The statute also allows utilities to recover from its ratepayers the “prudent and reasonable costs incurred by the utility in association with such purchase contracts” (Holt and Galligan 2015, 68). Therefore, all transactions
14 involving the retail purchase and sale of solar power in Florida, “unless the customer is the sole user of the solar unit, must involve the regulated electric utility as a party to the transaction” (Holt and Galligan 2015, 68).
Interconnection standards, which are requirements for energy customers to connect to the power grid, are another important factor in the growth of distributed generation solar. In the United States, jurisdiction over energy and electricity interconnection is divided into two distinct levels of governance: federal and state authority. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over the interconnection of wholesale DG solar projects aimed at selling electricity to utilities, while the states maintain jurisdiction over the interconnection of customer-owned solar generation systems to the grid. These standards are in place in order to maintain the safety and reliability of the power grid. However, in many states, the interconnection process is expensive and/or complex, which can present a significant barrier to getting a solar energy system online. In order to foster solar growth, some states, such as
California and Massachusetts, are simplifying the interconnection process by “clearly identifying fees associated with the process, specifying timelines, and standardizing and simplifying forms” (SEIA 2017). In 2008, Florida passed HB 7135, requiring each public utility to develop a Standard Interconnection Agreement for the expedited interconnection of customer-owned renewable energy systems up to 2 megawatts in size.
This was an important step for DG solar in Florida because “the ability to connect a DG solar system to the grid in a timely and cost-effective manner may determine whether that project moves forward” (SEIA 2107).
15 Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable portfolio standards require that electric utilities source a certain percentage or amount of the energy they generate or sell from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, and they provide a deadline for reaching that goal. While the
U.S. has no national renewable portfolio standard (RPS), many states have elected to adopt their own RPS policies, starting with Iowa in 1983. Since then, twenty-nine states, two territories and the District of Columbia have adopted binding renewable portfolio standards. Another eight states and two territories have adopted non-binding renewable portfolio goals. Roughly three-quarters of the U.S. population live in states that have implemented RPS policies. As of 2016, Florida had adopted neither a renewable portfolio standard or renewable portfolio goal (Holt and Galligan 2013, 16). Figure 2 summarizes renewable portfolio policies, by state. The details of an RPS policy vary widely but may include renewable energy targets, qualifying technologies, compliance mechanisms, and financial and other incentives. Usually, the RPS policy sets incremental targets that increase over an established number of years until the goal is reached. Some states may count the results of energy efficiency measures toward meeting RPS requirements (Holt and Galligan 2013, 17).
Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and goals are one of the primary policy instruments utilized by states to stimulate the renewable energy industry and, according to a study by Quan Cheng and Hongtao Yi, are the most effective policy tool for promoting renewables. Furthermore, studies conducted by Sanya Carley (2009) and
Haitao Yin and Nicholas Powers (2010) provide empirical evidence that RPS is associated with in-state renewable power generation growth. Typically, renewable
16 portfolio standards only apply to investor-owned utilities (IOUs) but some states include municipalities and electric cooperatives, as well. Research has shown that the probability of a state adopting renewable portfolio standards is highly impacted by political party dominancy, gross state product (GSP), and education (Cheng and Yi 2017, 685). A primary focus of this study is to identify the political factors, such as predominant political ideologies, that have kept Florida from joining the ranks of states that have adopted pro-renewable energy legislation, such as renewable portfolio standards.
Figure 2. State Renewable Portfolio Standard Polices
Source: DSIRE, 2017.
Third-Party Financing: PPAs and Solar Leases
Third-party financing is a well-established financing solution in the United States, having emerged in the solar industry as one of the most popular methods of financing
17 solar projects. It can allow customers who cannot afford to purchase solar panels outright to install solar panels at their home or business. According to the SEIA, 72% of residential solar installed in the U.S. in 2014 was third-party owned. The two most common third-party financing models utilized are power purchase agreements (PPAs) and solar leases. A solar lease is similar to a traditional lease in that an energy customer signs a lease with a third-party developer and pays to use their solar energy system/equipment. In a power purchase agreement (PPA), an energy customer agrees to purchase electricity from a decentralized, non-utility solar energy supplier at a fixed rate, usually lower than the local utility rate (SEIA 2017). The primary difference between a
PPA and a solar lease is that, with a lease, the end user pays a fixed monthly payment regardless of the amount of energy generated from the energy system. Therefore, the
“efficiencies or inefficiencies of the solar project accrue to the end user” (Sullivan et al.
2014, 29). In a PPA, however, the end user pays based on the kilowatt-hours generated, so the efficiencies or inefficiencies accrue to the owner/financier” (Sullivan et al. 2014,
29).
According to research conducted by Christine Crago and Ilya Chernyakhovskiy, allowing third party ownership is among the strongest predictors of DG solar growth in a state. Their study showed that third party ownership, which includes both PPAs and solar leases, can increase solar PV installation capacity by up to 200% (Crago and
Chernyakhovskiy 2017, 145). The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency (DSIRE) reports that third-party solar PPAs are allowed either statewide, or in certain jurisdictions, in 24 states and the District of Columbia, while at least five states, including Florida, disallow or otherwise restrict them. According to DSIRE, the policy
18 on solar PPAs in the remaining 19 states is either unclear or unreported (Holt and
Galligan 2015, 69). Advocates of allowing third-party PPAs argue that it would offer customers choice as to where they purchase their electricity and would result in solar energy capacity growth. Opponents argue that further enabling DG solar through the use of PPAs would pass on the costs to other customers (Holt and Galligan 2015, 69).
DG solar already provides significant statewide economic benefits in terms of jobs, income and investment. Creating a more DG-solar-friendly environment in Florida will increase demand for solar energy systems, which will, in turn, “create jobs for the installers, electricians, and manufacturers who work in the solar supply chain” (SEIA
2017). Adopting a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), allowing power purchase agreements (PPAs), and streamlining grid interconnection standards are all ways in which
Florida could encourage DG solar growth within the state. So why haven’t these measures been implemented? The next section examines the role political ideology plays in the legislative process and how this might have affected the status of distributed generation solar in Florida.
19 3. Political Ideology and Renewable Energy Policy
Regulatory policies affect the economic feasibility of distributed solar generation and Florida ranks low on the list of states with pro-solar policies. A recent study conducted by David J. Hess, Quan D. Mai, and Kate Pride Brown (2016), examined the connection between political ideology and support for renewable energy policies in the
United States. A primary focus of their study was the difference between conservative and liberal states and the “ideological disagreements over the proper role of government intervention in the economy” (Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 19). Specifically, they examine how core issues associated with conservative ideology, such as “support for tax cuts and deregulation, opposition to government mandates and cost increases, and support for business development,” are quantifiably associated with different levels of support for renewable energy legislation in state legislatures (Hess, Mai, and Brown
2016, 20). The results of their study show that renewable energy policy instruments that are in line with liberal ideology, such as government mandates that would create a burden for businesses, receive less support, while renewable energy legislation that is more in line with conservative ideology tends to gain greater levels of support (Hess, Mai, and
Brown 2016, 27). For example, legislation associated with renewable portfolio standards, which are essentially government mandates, received the lowest level of support, while legislation related to solar tax credits and non-mandatory renewable portfolio goals, received significantly higher support. Despite strong opposition to broad policy reforms that would speed up a transition to greater reliance on renewable energy,
Hess et al. argue, “it is possible to design policy in a way that reduces the potential for
20 legislative bills to trigger frames connected to fundamental ideological disagreements”
(Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 21).
The study conducted by Hess et al. examined the connection between political ideology and renewable energy legislation in all fifty states. This study borrows from
Hess et al. and focuses on the connection between political ideology and renewable energy legislation in Florida. More specifically, this study focuses on renewable energy legislation affecting the adoption of distributed generation (DG) solar within the state.
The following section provides an overview of the Florida legislative process and briefly discusses the how political dominancy might affect the adoption of renewable energy legislation in Florida.
The Florida Legislature
Florida has a bicameral legislature, consisting of a 40-member Senate and a 120- member House of Representatives, through which laws are created. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives may introduce legislation on any subject. When the legislation is introduced, it is referred to as a “bill,” which will become an “act” if it passes through both the House and the Senate. Upon passing both houses of the legislature, the act will be presented to the Governor for approval. If the Governor approves the bill or fails to veto the bill within a specified period, the act will become a law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, the act may only be reenacted if both the House and the Senate vote to do so with a two-thirds vote (Florida Senate 2017).
Both houses of the Florida legislature, as well as the Florida governorship, have been Republican-controlled since 1996. As Hess et al. note, attitudes regarding environmental policy tend to be quite polarized in the U.S., particularly during the period
21 since 1990, and these attitudes tend to align with political ideology. They cite
“ideological disagreements over the proper role of government intervention in the economy” as a core reason for the “widespread variation” in energy policy at the state government level in the United States (Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 19). They describe the primary ideological opposition as being between “‘conservatism,’ which prefers market-based policy instruments when necessary and low government regulation of markets where possible, and ‘liberalism,’ which focuses on the role of government in remedying market imperfections related to inequality, unemployment, environmental destruction, health, and safety” (Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 20). Furthermore, they cite a trend for one political party to control both houses of a state legislature, particularly following the 2014 elections, “when the number of partisan state legislatures controlled by Republicans reached 68 out of 98, the highest level in the party’s history” (Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 20). As previously noted, research by Cheng and Yi has shown that political party dominancy within a state impacts the adoption of renewable energy legislation in that state. The following section examines recent legislative efforts affecting DG solar in Florida, to better understand the role that political dominancy has played in shaping Florida’s renewable energy landscape.
22 4. Florida Solar Legislation Study
To gain a better understanding of Florida’s current solar energy policy landscape,
I compiled a list of bills submitted to the Florida legislature from 2006 to 2016 that pertained to solar energy production and distribution. The list of legislation was generated using both the Florida House and Florida Senate government websites, the
Florida Senate Archives website, and the Advanced Energy Legislation Tracker located at aeltracker.org. The search engines located on these websites were used to search for all pieces of legislation introduced between 2006 and 2016 that contained the words
“solar” or “renewable energy” within the bill text. The search results were then manually filtered to include only legislation that would reasonably affect distributed generation solar in Florida. The selected bills were compiled into a table that includes the year in which the bill was submitted, the bill number, a summary of the bill as it relates to renewable and/or solar energy in Florida, the party affiliation of the sponsor(s) that submitted the bill, the type of policy instrument the bill utilizes (incentive, mandate or regulatory), and the status of the bill (passed, failed, died in committee, or vetoed).
In the policy instrument column, a bill was considered an “incentive” if it pertained to tax exemptions or rebates for installing or operating solar source energy devices. A bill was considered a “mandate” if it required electric utilities, or any entity, to institute changes in their normal operations to accommodate renewable and or solar energy production. For example, bills related to renewable portfolio standards were considered “mandates.” Any legislation relating to solar energy production that did not fall into the “incentive” or “mandate” category was placed in the “regulatory” category.
23 In the bill status column, bills that passed both houses of the legislature and were signed into law are marked with a “P” for “passed.” Bills that were brought to a vote but did not receive the required number of “yes” votes to pass are marked with an “F” for
“failed.” Bills that were introduced and assigned to a committee for review but were never returned to the house for further action are marked with a “D” for “died in committee.” Bills that passed both houses but were, subsequently, vetoed by the
Governor are marked with “V” for “vetoed.
Companion bills, or bills that are introduced to both the Florida House and Senate around the same time and are virtually identical in nature, are listed together in the table and are counted as one bill.
My Expectations
In examining legislation put forward in Florida that would affect distributed solar generation within the state, I expect to find a correlation between the type of legislation introduced, its level of support, and the political ideology of the party holding a majority in the Florida house and senate during the time the bill was considered. Based on the research conducted by Hess et al., I expect to see bipartisan support for legislation that falls under the incentive category, particularly legislation relating to solar tax exemptions and tax credits, because “they resonate with the conservative frame of cutting taxes”
(Hess, Mai, and Brown 2016, 25). I expect to see far less bipartisan support for legislation that falls under the mandate and regulatory categories as they will tend to run contrary to conservative values of limited government regulation of markets.
24 The Data
Between 2006 and 2016, 58 pieces of legislation relating to solar energy production and distribution were introduced to the Florida legislature. Table 1 summarizes the results, while a full list of legislation included in this study can be found in Appendix A.
Total Failed/ Died in Republican Democrat Committee Year Introduced Passed Vetoed Committee Sponsored Sponsored Sponsored 2006 3 1 0 2 2 1 0 2007 4 0 1 3 3 1 0 2008 13 2 0 11 10 3 0 2009 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 2010 7 0 0 7 5 1 1 2011 8 0 0 8 6 1 1 2012 7 1 0 6 7 0 0 2013 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2014 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2015 4 0 0 4 2 2 0 2016 3 1 0 2 3 0 0 Total 58 6 1 51 45 11 2 Percent - 10.3% 1.7% 87.9% 77.6% 19.0% 3.4% Table 1. Summary of Florida Solar Legislation (2006-2016)
The data were organized into four graphs to allow analysis from multiple perspectives. Figure 3 displays the results organized by type of legislation as a percentage of the total. Approximately 41 percent of solar legislation submitted to the
Florida legislature between 2006-2016 fell under the incentive category, while 29 percent fell under the mandate category; the remaining 26 percent fell under the regulatory category.
25 Mandate 29.3% Incentive 43.1%
Regulatory 25.9%
Figure 3. Solar Energy Legislation Introduced, by Type (2006-2016)
Figure 4 is a graphic representation of the number of solar bills introduced each year, from 2006-2016, and the status of those bills. The black portion of the graph represents solar bills that passed both houses of the Florida legislature and were signed into law. The dark grey portion represents those bills that either failed a vote in the
House or Senate or passed both houses but were subsequently vetoed by the governor.
The light grey portion of the graph, where most of the data fall, represents bills that failed to make it out of one of the assigned subcommittees and, therefore, died in committee.
There is a noticeable spike in the number of solar bills submitted in 2008, which will be discussed in in the following section.
26 14
12
10
8
6 Number of Bills of Number 4
2
0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year
Pass Fail/Vetoed Died in Committee
Figure 4. Status of Introduced Solar Legislation, By Year (2006-2016)
Mandate 11 Regulatory 15 Incentive
Republican 19
Mandate 6
Regulatory 0 Democrat Incentive 5
Mandate 1 Regulatory 0 Committee Incentive 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Bills
Figure 5. Solar Legislation Introduced, by Party and Type (2006-2016)
27 Figure 5 illustrates the number of solar bills introduced to the legislature by each party from 2006 to 2016 and stratifies those bills according to the category under which they fell. As indicated by the graph, the majority of solar legislation introduced during that time period, regardless of category, was introduced by Republican members of the
House and Senate.
Finally, of the 58 bills introduced over the ten-year period, only 6 bills, roughly
10 percent, passed both houses of the legislature and were signed into law. Of these six bills that were passed, five fell under the incentive category and one fell under the mandate category. No regulatory bills were passed during this period. Figure 5 shows the percentage breakdown, by type, of solar legislation signed into law between 2006 and
2016.
Mandate 16.7%
Incentive 83.3%
Figure 6. Solar Legislation Signed into Law, by Type (2006-2016)
Understanding the Trends
Florida is referred to as the “Sunshine State” but its government does not promote solar energy in any meaningful way. Florida ranks only twelfth in the nation in solar
28 capacity installed, despite ranking third in solar potential. An examination of the last ten years of renewable energy legislation in Florida reveals certain trends that help explain why Florida is lagging behind on the solar energy front.
The graphs in figures 3, 5 and 6 show that financial incentives are, overall, the most popular policy tool concerning solar legislation. This supports my expectation that
Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature would show greater support for renewable energy legislation that is in line with conservative values, such as tax cuts and solar rebates. The six renewable energy bills that were signed into law between 2006 and 2016 are as follows: HB 1473 (2006), creating the Renewable Energy Technologies Grants
Program and the Solar Energy System Incentives Program; HB 7135 (2008), requiring utilities to develop a standardized interconnection and net metering agreement for customer-owned renewable generation; HB 697 (2008), expanding rebates for solar thermal system installations; HB 7117 (2012), authorizing a corporate tax credit for renewable energy production; HB 277 (2013), exempting renewable energy devices from assessed value of residential real property; and HB 195 (2016), exempting renewable energy devices from assessed value of nonresidential real property.
In addition to establishing net metering and interconnection standards,
Republican-sponsored HB 7135 (2008) also directed the Florida Public Service
Commission to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard. This represents the only piece of legislation supporting a government mandate that passed both houses of the Florida legislature between 2006 and 2016. Each year following its passage, however, Florida
Republicans attempted to either repeal the RPS entirely, with HB 1471 (2010) and HB
7217 (2011), or to replace it with a Clean Energy Portfolio, SB 1154 (2009) and SB 596
29 (2010). The proposed Clean Energy Portfolio defined “clean energy” to include electricity produced from non-renewable energy sources, including any fossil fuel or pipeline-quality synthetic gas produced by processing waste petroleum coke as long as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) plans have been approved by the appropriate authority (SB 596, 2010). In 2012, before the Renewable Portfolio Standard was ever implemented, it was eliminated with the passage of Republican-sponsored HB 7117.
Thus, the same Republican-controlled legislature that approved legislation that would implement a renewable portfolio standard in Florida, also agreed to repeal it a few years later. Hess et al. examined a similar shift in support of renewable energy legislation after
2009, reasoning that the implementation of newly-elected President Obama’s green jobs initiative caused political conservatives and members of the fossil-fuel sector to mobilize in opposition to the campaign. While the opposition was primarily directed at federal legislation supporting “carbon regulation and a federal renewable portfolio standard,” state polices were included, as well (Hess, Mai and Brown 2016, 26). This opposition may account for the reversal in Florida’s decision to adopt a renewable portfolio standard. Additionally, the adoption of net metering and interconnection standards appears to break, slightly, from the trend of conservative support for incentives, rather than mandates. However, Hess et al. note that framing net metering as “enabling consumer choice,…resonates with conservative ideology,” which tends to allow net metering legislation to gain greater bipartisan support (Hess, Mai and Brown 2016, 25).
Figure 4 shows a spike in the submission of renewable energy legislation in 2008.
One possible explanation for this spike is a shift in the national social consciousness regarding climate change around that time. During the previous year, the Nobel Peace
30 Prize for 2007 was jointly awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and former Vice President of the United States Albert (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
("The Nobel Peace Prize 2007”). Al Gore’s environmental efforts, which date as far back as 1992, were highlighted in 2006 when he released his documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth (2006), with the goal of increasing U.S. and global awareness of the dangers of climate change. Additionally, the IPCC released their Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007, in which the Climate Panel, “based on a coordinated program of research by several thousand experts in over a hundred countries…stated that climate change is accelerating, that the changes are to a significant extent man-made, and that the need to adopt counter-measures is urgent if we are to prevent a global climate crisis from arising in the near future and threatening the basis of human life” ("The Nobel Peace Prize
2007”). It is possible that the increased attention paid to climate change in 2006 and
2007 led to the spike in solar legislation in Florida in 2008.
Finally, Figure 5 shows that Republicans introduced far more solar-related legislation than Democrats between 2006 and 2016. Republicans introduced forty-five pieces of legislation pertaining to renewable energy, while Democrats introduced only eleven. These results run contrary to my expectation that Democrats would lead the charge in submitting solar-friendly legislation. Furthermore, I was surprised to find that only 42% of legislation submitted by Republicans fell into the incentive category.
Roughly 33% fell under the regulatory category while around 24% fell under the mandate category. I expected to see a much higher percentage of bills introduced falling under the
31 incentive category, as they fall more in line with conservative ideology. Considering a majority of the bills introduced by Republicans were tax exemptions and solar rebates, one might reason that Republicans were simply trying to minimize the perceived hardships that certain businesses might endure as a result of the gradual, yet inevitable, shift toward renewable energy.
32 5. Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that solar legislation crafted in the form of a financial incentive is more likely to have success in the Florida legislature than legislation crafted as a mandate or regulation. This supports my expectation that solar legislation creating tax exemptions and tax credits are more likely to make it through the
Republican-controlled legislature as it is more in line with conservative values of cutting taxes and less government regulation. Given these trends, it seems unlikely that renewable energy policy tools, such as renewable portfolio standards and the allowance of power purchase agreements, will become Florida law while the Florida Legislature remains under Republican control. Without such policy instruments in place, the growth of the distributed generation solar market in Florida is likely to lag behind more pro-solar states, detracting from Florida’s reputation as “the Sunshine State.”
One factor that was not considered in this study is the impact of lobbyists on solar legislation. Cheng and Yi note that “support and objections from bureaucratic agencies are important factors that affect the balance of the political market and thus change the policy outcomes.” They point out that certain interest groups will benefit from the enacted policies, while others will have to bear the costs. In the case of renewable energy policy, pro-solar energy policies will direct benefits to the solar energy industry while imposing “costs on carbon-intensive industries.” Therefore, electric utilities tend to oppose renewable energy financial incentives, for example, while environmentalists and producers of renewable energy tend to support them (Cheng and Yi 2017, 686).
A July 2017 article by Molly Taft, published on the Nexus Media News website, noted that clean energy advocates believe “Florida utilities wield outsized influence on
33 state politics” (Taft 2017). According to Taft, utility companies are among the largest campaign donors in Florida. A 2014 report released by Integrity Florida, a nonprofit research institute and self-proclaimed government watchdog, revealed that Florida’s top four utility companies “spent more than $12 million on lobbying between 2007 and 2013, registering at least one lobbyist for every two legislators each year during that period”
(Taft 2017). Further research into this area might include examining the presence of pro- solar and pro-utility lobbyists in Florida and comparing factors such as lobbyist spending on legislation submission rates.
34 Appendix A: Florida Solar Legislation (2006-2016) Year Title Subject of Bill Type Status Party HB195/ Assessed value of solar/renewable energy devices 2016 I P R SB172 exempt from ad valorem taxation Increases tax credit limit for renewable energy 20016 SB 1272 I D R production; deletes time limit for credit. Prohibits a county from regulating renewable energy HB 687/ 2016 devices more stringently than required under FL R D R SB 1328 Building Code. HB 867/ 2015 Renewable Energy Source exempt from property tax. I D R SB 402 SB 992/ Revives Solar Energy System Incentives Program; SB 868/ 2015 authorizes rebates for a portion of cost of solar I D D HB509/ energy system. HB 1089 Authorizes business/electric utilities to install & HB 1077/ 2015 operate solar devices; owner/utility can sell R D R SB 1118 electricity generated. Requires utilities to purchase electricity from 2015 HB 1227 renewable energy producers; Requires utilities to M D D offer net metering. HB 825/ Allows tax breaks to businesses that install solar 2014 I D R SB 916 panels. HB 827/ Prohibits increase in value of real property due to 2014 I D R SB 922 installation of solar devices by end use customers. Requires utilities to purchase electricity from HB 309/ 2013 renewable energy producers at retail rate via 10-year M D D SB 498 contracts. Implements a 2008 constitutional amendment that SB1064/ 2013 exempts renewable energy improvements made after I P D HB 277 Jan. 1, 2013 HB 133/ Property tax exemption for renewable energy 2012 I D R SB 156 devices. Local Government can create Energy Zones where SB 640/ 2012 any renewable energy producer can generate/sell R D R HB 1463 energy A property owner who installs customer-owned HB 661/ 2012 renewable generation may sell the generated energy R D R SB 696 to their tenants HB 779/ Revises definition of "public utility" to exclude 2012 R D R SB 1106 certain renewable solar energy production facilities HB 1283/ 2012 Solar Energy System rebates I D R SB 1864 Requires utilities to charge monthly system fee to be 2012 HB 1427 placed into the Sustainable and Renewable Energy M D R Policy Fund Corporate tax credit for renewable energy HB 7117/ 2012 production; deletes directive to PSC to adopt rules I P R SB 2094 for RPS. Requires utilities to charge monthly system fee to be HB 219/ 2011 placed into the Sustainable and Renewable Energy M D D SB 282 Policy Fund Property tax exemption for renewable energy 2011 SB 434 I D R devices.
35 Requires purchase contracts offered to producers of 2011 SB 156 renewable energy be based on utility’s cost-recovery M D R rate Requires that electric utilities meet or exceed 2011 SB 1102 specified standards for the production or purchase of M D R “clean” energy Removes requirement for Renewable Portfolio 2011 SB 1336 R D R Standard Solar systems must have a certain percentage of HB 1349/ components made in Florida or U.S. to be eligible for 2011 R D R SB 1724 sales tax exemption; deletes provision for Renewable Portfolio Standard Requires a utility to purchase excess electrical output CS/SB 2011 generated by any property owner's rooftop solar M D C 110 equipment Deletes provisions for renewable portfolio standard 2011 HB 7217 R D R & renewable energy credits Replaces RPS with Clean Energy Portfolio; requires 2010 SB 596 that utilities meet or exceed specified standards for M D R the production or purchase of “clean” energy. 2010 SB 774 Ratifies Renewable Portfolio Standards M D R Requires utilities to collect monthly charge for HB 1267/ 2010 deposit into Sustainable and Renewable Energy M D D SB 2404 Policy Trust Fund Requires electric utilities to impose a renewable 2010 SB 2346 energy fee on customers to pay for renewable energy M D R incentives. Residential Property renewable energy device tax 2010 SB 1410 I D C exemption 2010 SB 1186 Cost recovery for renewable energy providers. I D R HB 1471/ Removes requirement for Renewable Portfolio 2010 R D R SB 992 Standard Replaces RPS with Clean Energy Portfolio; requires 2009 SB 1154 that utilities meet or exceed specified standards for M D R the production or purchase of “clean” energy. Solar energy systems made or sold in FL must meet 2009 SB 1380 national standards, solar testing center must charge R D R fees. Clean Portfolio Standards Act; Requires utilities 2009 SB 2328 ensure at least 20% of all retail electric sales be M D R derived from clean energy by a certain date. Requires utilities to provide producers of renewable HB 1317/ 2009 energy with interconnection and metering services; M D R SB 2392 Requires utilities to purchase produced energy. HB 1319/ Provides for legislative ratification of the rules on 2009 M D R SB 2490 renewable portfolio standards adopted by the PSC. Allows solar collectors on condo roofs; removes cap 2008 SB 308 I D R on renewable energy device tax exemption amount Revises provisions for to the renewable energy tax 2008 SB 314 exemption. Prohibits tax exemption if installed R D R before July 1, 2008. Revises renewable energy source property and sales 2008 SB 412 I D R tax exemptions and tax credit; authorizes
36 transferability of renewable energy technologies investment tax credit. Property tax exemption for renewable energy source 2008 HB 229 device; allows transferability of renewable energy I D D technologies investment tax credit. Requires utilities to develop standard interconnection HB 557/ agreements for customer-owned renewable energy 2008 M D D SB 1432 generation; requires electric utilities to provide net metering. HB 457/ 2008 Establishes Net Metering Incentive Program I D R SB 1178 CS/HB 2008 Expands rebate for solar thermal system installation I P R 697 Requires pre-application to qualify for solar rebate; 2008 HB 1165 R D R limits solar rebate to one type of system per year. Directs the Public Service Commission to develop 2008 SB 1382 rules requiring public utilities to develop net R D R metering programs. Requires utilities to develop a standardized interconnection and net metering agreement for 2008 HB 7135 M P R customer-owned renewable generation; directs the PSC to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Requires preapplication for rebate under the 2008 SB 2250 solar photovoltaic system incentive; revises property R D R tax exemption amount/date. Creates distributed alternative energy generation HB 1397/ 2008 development initiative/pilot program; requires R D R SB 2840 utilities to support program. SB 720/ Property tax exemption for installing/operating a 2008 I D D SB 722 renewable energy source device. HB 313/ Provides preapproved rebates for installation of 2007 I D R SB 1640 certain solar energy systems. HB 1349/ Increases exemption amount for real property with 2007 I D R SB 2734 installed & operating renewable energy source device HB 1385/ Directs PSC & DEP to develop rules requiring all 2007 M D D SB 2820 electric utilities to develop net metering programs Revises provisions for renewable energy source CS/HB 2007 exemption; property tax exemption for renewable I V R 7123 energy source device. Creates Florida Solar Incentive Program; establishes 2006 HB 713 Solar Energy Development Fund & Photovoltaic I D R Incentive Program; Creates Renewable Energy Technologies Grants HB 1473/ 2006 Program; creates Solar Energy System Incentives I P D SB 888 Program. Creates FL Solar Energy Incentives Program; rebates 2006 SB 2478 I D R for installation of solar energy systems.
37 Bibliography
Blackburn, Griselda, Clare Magee, and Varun Rai. 2014. “Solar Valuation and the Modern Utility’s Expansion into Distributed Generation.” The Electricity Journal 27: 18-32. Accessed February 24, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.tej.2013.12.002.
Carley, Sanya. 2009. “State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness.” Energy Policy 37: 3071-3081.
Cheng, Quan and Hongtao Yi. 2017. “Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67: 683-691. Accessed February 24, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.069.
Chung, Donald, Kelsey Horowitz, and Parthiv Kurup. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges in U.S. Solar Manufacturing. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-7A40-65788. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65788.pdf.
Crago, Christine Lasco and Ilya Chernyakhovskiy. 2017. “Are policy incentives for solar power effective? Evidence from residential installations in the Northeast.” Journal of Environmental Economics Management 81: 132-151. Accessed February 24, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2016.09.008.
DSIRE. 2017. “Renewable Portfolio Standards.” Accessed August 6, 2017. http://www.dsireusa.org/resources/detailed-summary-maps/.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Climate Change: Basic Information.” Accessed February 16. https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic- Information.
Feldman, David, Daniel Boff and Robert Margolis. 2016. “Q2/Q3 2016 Solar Industry Update.” SunShot U.S. Department of Energy. NREL/PR-6A20-67246.
Florida Power & Light (FPL). 2016. “Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016-2025.” Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.fpl.com/company/pdf/10-year-site-plan.pdf
Florida Power & Light (FPL). 2017. “Solar Energy Centers.” Accessed August 5, 2017. https://www.fpl.com/clean-energy/solar/energy-centers.html
Florida Public Service Commission. 2017. “Inside the PSC 2017.” April 25. Accessed August 2. http://www.floridapsc.com/Files/PDF/Publications/Reports/ General/InsidePSC.pdf.
Florida Senate. 2017. “Glossary.” Accessed April 17. Retrieved from https://www.flsenate.gov/Reference/Glossary#A.
38
Helman, Christopher. 2015. “Will Solar Cause A ‘Death Spiral’ For Utilities?” Forbes.com. January 30. Accessed August 6, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2015/01/30/will-solar-cause-a-death- spiral-for-utilities/#5c8f3cea25d1
Hess, David J., Quan D. Mai, and Kate Pride Brown. 2016. “Red states, green laws: Ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States.” Energy Research and Social Science 11: 19-28.
Holt, Lynne and Mary Galligan. 2013. “States’ RPS Policies: Serving the Public Interest?” The Electricity Journal 26: 16-23.
Holt, Lynne and Mary Galligan. 2015. “Florida’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Local Solar Electricity Supply.” The Electricity Journal 28: 66-77.
IPCC, 2014. “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers.” https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Klas, Mary. 2016. “As rooftop solar costs drop, utility attempts to raise barriers may not work.” Miami Herald. November 12. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics- government/election/article114377458.html.
Penn State Extension. 2017. “Solar Energy.” Accessed April 21. http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy/solar-energy.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2017. “Levelized Cost of Energy.” System Advisor Model (SAM). Accessed April 28. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/help/html-php/index.html?mtf_lcoe.htm.
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). 2017. “Distributed Solar.” Accessed January 26. http://www.seia.org/policy/distributed-solar.
Taft, Molly. 2017. “Clouds Over the Sunshine State.” NexusMediaNews.com. July 10. Accessed July 25. https://nexusmedianews.com/clouds-over-the-sunshine-state- a0df0ff22201
“The Nobel Peace Prize 2007.” Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/.
The Solar Foundation. 2017. “National Solar Jobs Census.” Accessed April 28. http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/
39 Ulrich, Elaine. 2016. “Soft Costs 101: The Key to Achieving Cheaper Solar Energy.” Energy.gov. February 25. https://energy.gov/eere/articles/soft-costs-101-key- achieving-cheaper-solar-energy.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. “Solar Energy in the United States.” Energy.gov. Accessed February 17. https://energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar- energy-united-states.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2016. “Florida: State Profile and Energy Estimates.” Last modified August 18. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=FL.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017. “Monthly Energy Review: March 2017.” Accessed April 28. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351703.pdf.
Yin, Haitao and Nicholas Powers. 2010. “Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generation?” Energy Policy 38: 1140-1149.
40