Advanced Energy Perspectives

This is Part Two of a two-part blog series on design of utility renewable energy tariffs. Part One (last week) addressed the needs of participating corporate customers, and Part Two considers the needs of nonparticipating customers.

Last week, we dug into the topic of renewable energy tariffs from the lens of prospective participants, listing out some of the considerations that make the difference between success and failure when it comes to customer uptake. In this post, we turn the tables and look at the same programs from a different perspective—that of nonparticipating customers. This post draws from the lessons offered by AEE Institute’s recent paper, Making Corporate Renewable Energy Purchasing Work for All Utility Customers, which looked at case studies of eight programs across seven states.

This post is Part One of a two-part series on design of utility renewable energy tariffs. Part One addresses the needs of participating customers, and Part Two (next week) considers the needs of nonparticipating customers.

Followers of the advanced energy sector are, by now, very familiar with the trend of leading companies, cities, universities, and other organizations choosing to source their electricity from renewable energy. To date, the majority of renewable energy projects contracted to meet this demand have been in restructured states, where companies face few regulatory barriers to signing a power purchase agreement (PPA). That’s not to say, however, that states with traditionally regulated utilities are doomed to miss out on the headline-grabbing, job-creating, tax-income-generating benefits of corporate renewable energy deals. On the contrary, utilities in vertically integrated states are developing programs to allow voluntary renewable energy procurement, often termed renewable energy tariffs, or “green” tariffs. But the experience to date of these renewable energy tariffs has been mixed, with some failing to generate much interest from corporate purchase because of their cost or terms, and others questioned for their impact on utility customers who are not part of the program.

A recent policy brief from AEE and new report from AEE Institute consider best practices for design of renewable energy tariffs that meet the needs of both corporate participants and for other utility customers. This post explains what we mean by “renewable energy tariffs,” and walks through the needs and preferences of corporate participants. Next week’s post will dive into detail on designing programs with all customers in mind, including nonparticipants.

Renovating old buildings to be more energy efficient or incorporate renewable energy is a win-win—more efficient homes and businesses, some of them generating electric power themselves, cause less strain on utilities and power generators while also saving money for consumers on their monthly bills—but the renovations often come with an upfront price tag that could take years or decades to pay back. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs allow property owners to borrow money for advanced energy upgrades, then repay the money over time on their property tax bill. What’s not to like? Well, that gets complicated. Until recently, homeowners in much of the country have been unable to benefit from PACE, and now that they can, new challenges have arisen from critics who say consumers do not get adequate protection from fraud. California, where residential PACE is most firmly established, is in the crosshairs – but also on the verge of improvements that would make PACE stronger, and more protective of consumer interests, than ever.  

Three years ago, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the most restrictive wind turbine siting requirements in the nation, bringing most new wind development in the state to a standstill. Although industry leaders warned of the potential consequences, the new setback language was inserted into a budget bill – with no testimony or debate – and signed by the Governor. With nearly $4.2 billion of wind investments at stake, it’s time to roll back Ohio’s wind setback. Unfortunately, Ohio lawmakers let one opportunity to restore balance to wind siting slip away. Now, the best shot they have is a legislative vehicle full of danger for the advanced energy industry.

This is a guest post by Suzanne L. Bertin, Executive Director, Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance, an AEE state partner. To learn more about TAEBA, click here. To learn more about AEE’s nationwide coalition of state and regional partners, click here.

Then-governor Rick Perry speaks at an EV event in 2011. Photo via Flickr.

On June 12, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law SB 1731, enacting policies promoting electric and hydrogen vehicles and other advanced energy transportation technologies in the Lone Star State. In a legislative session otherwise dominated by social issues, the passage of this bill was a high point for advanced energy. At Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance (TAEBA), this was one of our priority bills, and we are glad to see Texas return to the leadership role it held until a key incentive program lapsed in 2015. Now, Texas has rejoined the 14 other states and Washington, D.C., that provide incentives for advanced vehicles.