### ·



### December 1 , 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

To Be Submitted via: A

- and

- R

- Docket@epa.gov

RE: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0602

Comments to the EPA and States on the Proposed Clean Power Plan Regulating Existing Power Plants Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act

Dear A dministrator McCarthy:

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and its 1,000 members would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Clean Power Plan regulating existing power plants under section 111(d) o f the Clean Air Act (hereafter referred to as 111(d)).

Solar energy reduces carbon pollutants and offers a positive economic return while generating
affordable and reliable energy. As a cost

- effective clean energy source, solar avoids a number of costs

as sociated with fossil fuel resources. Further, solar enjoys widespread bi

- partisan support from policymakers and the general public throughout the United States. As fossil energy production declines, solar energy will be available to help meet energy demand s in a clean and sustainable manner. Therefore, SEIA respectfully requests that the EPA adopt an approach to r egulating carbon emissions
under Section 111 ( d ) of the Clean Air Act that recognizes the ability of solar to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants and that promotes the increas ed deployment and use of solar energy.

The comments contained herein reflect the views of SEIA and not the views of any individual member

company. The following is an outline of SEIA’s comments to the EPA.



# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States has some of the richest solar resources in the world . The U.S. solar industry grew by
53% from 2012 to 2013 , accounting for nearly 30% of all new electric generating capacity added to the U.S. grid in 2013. 1 

### An additiona l 7.3 GW of solar capacity are expected to be added in 2014, brining the
cumulative U.S. total to over 20 GW

- enough to power more than 4 million homes. The U.S. solar

1 

### SEIA/GTM U.S. Solar Market Insight TM 

### Year in Review 2013 Report. All U.S. Solar Market Insight Reports are available here: http://www.seia.org/research

- resources/us

- solar

- market

- insight

### 2

industry now supports 143,000 employees at more than 6,100 companies spread across all 5 0 states. This phenomenal growth is the result of private investment, technological innovation, a maturing industry, customer demand, and smart federal and state policies.

The steady decline in solar energy costs makes it a cost

- effective solution to redu cing greenhouse gas emissions, modernizing grid operations, increasing energy independence, addressing water supply challenges, while simultaneously lowering long

- term electricity supply costs and providing significant
economic benefits. Solar contributes to a balanced portfolio of energy resources, and can help achieve an optimal long

- term strategy for the economy and the environment.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan recognizes and bolsters the current opportunity to reduce carbon emissions by transitioning the United States electric grid from a fossil fuel dominant fuel mix to a balanced energy portfolio that includes a higher penetration of renewable energy resources. The Clean Power Plan will require affected electric generating units (affected EGUs) within ea ch state to reduce their carbon emissions, thus presenting the opportunity for utilities and states to shift towards sources that generate energy with little or no carbon emissions such as solar energy. The EPA has already recognized the importance of rene wable energy and the role for renewable energy to play in this transition, and has included renewable energy as a part of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) that has been adequately demonstrated to reduce emissions from affected EGUs.

Solar ener gy measures are part of the BSER because solar energy is technologically feasible, reasonable cost, reduces carbon emissions while providing other health and environmental benefits, and promotes technological development without negatively impacting the el ectric grid. Further, solar energy has been adequately demonstrated, as owners of affected EGUs are shifting generation away from dirty fossil fuels and turn to solar for a source of clean dependable energy.

SEIA supports the EPA and the Clean Power Plan , and agrees with EPA that solar energy measures are part of the BSER. However, SEIA is also concerned that building block 3 (renewable energy measures) as it is currently calculated is incomplete because it does not contain current solar market data on c ost and penetration rates, and it does not include distributed PV, which represents about 50% of the total U.S. solar market. Therefore, as it is currently written, EPA’s proposal does not accurately reflect the emissions reductions achievable through app lication of the BSER.

To ensure that EPA’s final emissions goals accurately reflect application of the BSER to affected EGUs, the EPA should make the following changes:

1. Include Distributed PV in Building Block 3: Distributed PV is one of the largest and fastest growing segments of the renewable energy market, and is currently procured by entities that own and operate affected EGUs. Therefore, under EPA’s system wide approach, distributed PV is

### 3

necessarily part of the BSER and failure to include it in EPA ’s final rule would be arbitrary and capricious.
2. Use Accurate Cost and Penetration Data for Solar: The data used by EPA for calculating solar energy potential as part of the building block 3 is out of date and incomplete. Therefore, the EPA’s current pro posal does not reflect the BSER. The EPA should update its cost and penetration data for solar when determining state emission reduction targets to ensure that the BSER is correctly reflected in state goals.
3. Use the Alternative Approach for Determining State Goals : The EPA should use the Alternative Approach when determining state emission reduction targets because the Alternative Approach more accurately reflects the emission reduction and deployment potential of renewable energy than the RPS Approach.
4. Make the Following Adjustments When Determining State Goals: To ensure that the EPA’s state emission reduction targets reflect application of the BSER to affected EGUs, the EPA should make the following adjustments when determining state goals.
1. The EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmark from the alternative approach and rely on the IPM model results with modifications.
2. The EPA should use the Sunshot

- 62.5% cost scenario as the cost input for utility PV in the IPM model and as the cost input for distributed PV from the SolarDS model.
3. The EPA should use the Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario distributed PV solar capacity projections to hard

- wire distributed PV into the IPM model to include distributed
PV.
4. The EPA should u pdate the current generation data for solar from EIA data with SEIA’s recommended outlined approach.
5. The EPA should update the performance estimates used in the IPM model for solar.
6. The EPA should use a 2012 or higher baseline year.

These changes will ensure that the EPA’s emission reduction targets accurately reflect application of the BSER to affected EGUs. In fact, with these adjustments in building block 3, the EPA will find that renewable energy potential is nearly double what EPA ori ginally calculated, increasing from roughly 530
TWh to 973 TWh.

Finally, while natural gas will play an important role in the transition to a clean energy future, SEIA urges the EPA to ensure that its final rule does not require or incentivize states to o ver

- rely on natural gas. An

over

- reliance on natural gas in the near term will incentivize significant natural gas infrastructure build

out over the next few years that will undermine the EPA’s long term carbon reduction goals. Once the
infrastructure is b uilt, it will be more difficult and expensive for states to switch to lower and non

emitting sources like renewable energy in the future. Further, natural gas is subject to extreme price volatility, such as was experienced by ratepayers during the 2014 po lar vortex. Thus, the EPA should

### 4

craft a final rule that allows states to avoid unnecessary costs by encouraging energy diversity and recognizing the long term price certainty and emission reduction value provided by renewable energy.

The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the United States and a proven technology to help reduce carbon emissions. We encourage the EPA to adopt a final rule that recognizes the value of solar energy as part of a balanced energy portfolio.

The follow ing is an outline of SEIA’s comments to the EPA.



# Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7

1A. About SEIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7
1B. Introduction to Solar Energy

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7
1B1. Photovoltaics (PV)

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7
1B2. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9
1B3. Solar Heating and Cooling (SHC)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10
1C. The EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Emissions from the Electric Sector

................................ .. 10

2. SEIA Comments on the EPA’s Proposal for Regulating Carbon Emissions from Existing Sources under Section 111(d)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11
2A. Determination of the Best System of Emission Reduction

................................ ............................... 11
2A1. Determining the Best System of Emission Reduction as Adequately Demonstrated

................ 12
2A2. Solar Energy Measures are Part of the Best System of Emission Reduction and are Adequately
Demonstrated

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13
2A3. Solar Energy Measures are a System of Emission Reduction

................................ ..................... 13
2B. Solar Energy Measures are Part of the Best System of Emission Reduction

................................ .... 13
2B1. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included as Part of the BSER Because Solar Energy Measures
are Technica lly Feasible

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14
2B2. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They are a Reasonable Cost System to Reduce Emissions from Affected EGUs

................................ ................................ .............. 24
2B3. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They Reduce Carbon Emissions
fro m Affected EGUs

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 40

### 5

2B4. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They Promote Technological Development

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44
2B5. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They Can be Reliably Integrated into the Electric Grid

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46
2B6. Solar Energy Measures are Adequately Demonstrated Because They are Currently Being Used by Utilities and Other Owners of Affect ed EGUs

................................ ................................ ................ 51
2B7. Solar Energy Measures Avoid Health and Environmental Concerns Associated with Dirtier Sources of Energy.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 57

3. Determination of State Goals

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 8
3A. The Proposed State Goals do not Reflect Emissions Limitations Achievable through Application of
the BSER to Affected EGUs.

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 58
3B. The EPA Should Use the Alternative Approach with Modifications to Determine the State Goals. 59
3B1. Exclude the Technical Potential Benchmark from the Alternative Approach and Rely on the
IPM Model Results with Modifications.

................................ ................................ .............................. 60

3B2. Use Sunshot

- 62.5% Scenario Distributed PV Solar Capacity Projections to Hard

- wire
Distributed PV into the IPM Model.

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 61

3B3. Use the Sunshot

- 62.5% Cost Scenario as the Cost Input for Utility PV in the IPM Model and as the Cost Input for Distributed PV from the SolarDS Model.

................................ ............................... 63
3B4. Update the Capital Cost Adders for CSP.

................................ ................................ .................... 65
3B5. Update the Current Generation Data for Solar from EIA Data with the Below Outlined Approach.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 66
3B6. Update the Performance Estimates used in the IPM Model for Solar.

................................ ...... 69
3B7. SEIA Does Not Take a Position on the NODA Regionalized Approach for RE Target Setting

..... 69
3B8. SEIA supports the changing the goal setting equation for calculating building block 3 as
mentioned in the NODA to reflect the reduced utilization of affected EGUs from displacement by renewable energy.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 70
3B9. SEIA Supports a 201 2 or Higher Baseline Year

................................ ................................ ........... 70
3C. As an Example, Other Approaches to Setting the Renewables Portion to the State Targets Show
Doub le the Amount of Renewable Energy Potential using the Correct Data for Renewable Energy.

... 71

3D. Should the EPA Default to the Curr ent Approach (RPS approach) in Setting State Targets, Several Key Changes Must be Made as Noted Below.

................................ ................................ ........................ 72

4. Compliance Comments

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 74

### 6

4A. Existing Measures and Early Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 74
4A1. SEIA Supports the EPA Proposal to Allow Existing Measures to Count Towards Compliance After the Date of the Proposed Rule, But Requests that EPA Provide Clearer Guidance in the Final
Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 74
4A2. EPA Proposal to Allow Pre

- 2020 Emissions Reductions to Count Towards Overall State Goals 75

4B. Interstate Emissions Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 76

4B1. The EPA Should Credit States that Invest in Renewable Energy

................................ ................ 76
4C. Federal Enforceability: The EPA Should Implement Enforceable Emissions Targets but Allow Programmatic Flexibility

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 79
4D. Evaluation, Measurement and Verification: The EPA Should Provide Guidance for Evaluation,
Measurement and Verification of Solar

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 80
4E. Periodic Review of the Best System of Emissions Reductions: The EPA Shou ld Review the BSER Every 8 Years

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 80

4F. Post

- 2030 Emissions Reduction Requirements: The EPA Should Require State Emission Levels to be Maintained After the Compliance Period has Ended

................................ ................................ ............. 81

4G. Concerns with Natural Gas

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 81
4H. Recognize Each Solar Technology as a Compliance Option and Specifically Mention these Technologies May be Eligible within State Compliance Plans.

................................ ............................... 83

5. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 83

APPENDIX A

– SEIA Calculation of the Technical Potential Benchmark

................................ ...................... 84

APPENDIX B

- Evaluation, Measurement & Verification

................................ ................................ .............. 88

APPENDIX C

- DOE Sunshot Capacity Projections with

- 62.5% Cost Reduction Scenario

............................ 90

APPENDIX D

- TMY3 Solar P V System Performance

................................ ................................ .................... 93

APPENDIX E

- Solar Procurement

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 98

### 7



# 1. Introduction

1A. About SEIA Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association is the national trade association of the U.S. solar energy industry. Through advocacy and education, SEIA and its member companies are building a strong solar industry to power America. As the voice of the industry, SEIA works to make solar a mainstream and significant energy source by expanding markets, removing market barriers, strengthening the industry and educating the public on the benefits of solar energy. SEIA represents the entire solar industry, encompassing all major solar technologies (photovoltaics, concentrating solar power and solar heating and cooling) and all points in the value chain, including financiers, project develop ers, component manufacturers and solar installers. 2



### The United States has some of the richest solar resources in the world; the U.S. solar industry grew by
53% from 2012 to 2013

. 3 

### This phenomenal growth is the result of private investment, technological innovation, a maturing industry, customer demand, and smart federal and state policies.



## 1B. Introduction to Solar Energy There are multiple forms of solar energy technologies, each with its own unique performance capabilities and benefits. Below is a description of the primary types of solar energy technologies:



### 1B1. Photovoltaics (PV) Photovoltaic (PV) devices generate electricity directly from sunlight via an electronic process t hat occurs naturally in certain types of material, called semiconductors. Electrons in these materials are freed by solar energy and can be induced to travel through an electrical circuit, powering electrical devices or sending electricity to the grid. PV devices can be used to power anything from small electronics such as calculators and road signs up to homes and large commercial businesses.

PV technology can be applied in a number of different ways. The primary applications of PV solar are,
distributed P V, utility PV and off

- grid distributed PV . These applications are discussed in further detail
below.

2 

### The views expressed herein are the views of SEIA and not the views of any individual member company

3 

### U.S. Sola r Market Insight TM 

### Year in Review 2013 report.

### 8

Applications of PV Solar

Distributed PV
Distributed PV refers to solar electricity that is produced at or near the point where it is used. 4


### Distributed PV can be located on rooftops or ground

- mounted, and is typically connected to the lo cal utility distribution grid. D istributed PV installations tend to be smaller than utility

- scale arrays. 5 

### Due to the nature of proposed regulations, in these comments, distributed PV only refers to solar that is connected to the grid and thus can lower carbon emission from affected EGUs.

Distributed PV is one of the fast growing applications of PV te chnology in the United States. As of the end of 2013, the to tal U.S. cumulative installed capacity of distributed PV was 6.3 GW dc


### . 6 

### In addition to reducing carbon emissions, distributed PV can provide wholesale ancillary services in the same fashion as utility

- scale assets and can also provide local ancillary servi ces beyond what utility

- scale assets are capable of providing . These services include but are not limited to frequency regulation, frequency response, spinning and non

- spinning reserves, voltag e and reactive power support. D istributed PV can also provide i ncremental ancillary services on the local or distribution level. Local voltage support is critical to operating the distribution system within system constraints, and distribution system operators rely on a distributed set of voltage regulating equipment to provide that support. D istributed PV can augment and sometimes replace this equipment, providing real and reactive power support as identified by the distribution operator.

Utility PV Utility

- scale PV, or utility scale solar, refers to PV technology applied to the grid on a large

- scale centralized basis. The defining features of utility

- scale PV is that it is constructed as a centralized power plant, it is larger in size than distributed PV ( generally larger than 10 MW), it is not generally located

n ear the source of consumption, and the electricity generated by utility

- scale PV is usually sold to wholesale utility buyers rather than retail consumers. There are a number of characteristics unique to large

- scale installations that make them attractive t o utilities, including advanced operational characteristics, low cost, and long

- term fixed pricing. In addition, utility

- scale PV can provide a variety of ancillary services associated with traditional fossil sources including frequency regulation, dynami c

4 

### Distributed PV is a type of distributed generation. Distributed generation refers to electricity that is generated at or near the point where it is used. There are several types of distributed generation, i ncluding distributed PV, solar heating and cooling, distributed wind, and combined heat and cooling.

5 

### DG solar is also sometimes referred to as “behind the meter”, although it does not have to be behind a meter. Different entities also classify the size of DG systems in various ways; for example, the EIA classifies DG solar as anything below 1 MW in size. The PURPA classification for DG solar classifies small DG as anything under or equal to 10 MW. SEIA/GTM Research classify DG solar as solar located on

- s ite, or at the customer’s end location.

6 

### U.S. Solar Market Insight TM 

### Q2 2014 report.

### 9

voltage and power factor regulation, and ramp rate controls. Thus, when included as part of a balanced energy portfolio, utility

- scale PV contributes to the stability and reliability of the grid. Further, utility

scale PV reduces carbon emissions from f ossil units by reducing the amount of conventional generation that must be dispatched to meet electricity demand. As of the end of Q2 2014 , the total U.S. cumulative installed capa city of utility

- scale PV was 7.3 GW dc


### . 7



### Off

- Grid Distributed PV
Off

- grid distributed PV systems route electrons through a solar regulator which charges a battery. From the battery, the power can be directly utilized by appliances that require 12 volts, or via an inverter for appliances that require 240 volts. These sys tems are not connected to the grid, but can be used to reduce the need for production from the grid.

While not SEIA does not advocate for off

- grid distributed PV to be a part of the Best System of Emission Reductions, the EPA should encourage states to use off

- grid distributed PV systems for compliance, as these technologies avoid the need for electricity from the grid. For example, off

- grid distributed PV systems placed on roadside assistance emergency phone boxes, wireless security and surveillance

cam eras, communication towers, and street lighting systems all can be used to avoid the use of electricity from the grid.


### 1B2. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) CSP uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s thermal energy to produce steam and drive a conventional steam turbine to produce electricity. This solar generated electricity is then sold to wholesale utility buyers. CSP can be integrated with thermal energy st orage, which allows energy to be stored for later use. In this way, CSP with thermal energy storage provides flexibility to grid operators, offering power that can be dispatched as needed, day or night. These large

- scale installations are attractive to uti lities because they include advanced operational characteristics, delivering large quantiti es of solar power at
a low cost and long

- term fixed pricing that provides a hedge against fuel volatility.

CSP plants utilize conventional steam turbine generators, like those of conventional plants, but use the sun as the source of heat instead of fossil fuels. This allows CSP plants to provide the ancillary services historically offered by conventional plants, such as frequency response, load following, spinning an d

non

- spinning reserves as well as ramping. CSP reduces carbon emissions from affected EGUs by reducing the amount of conventional generation that must be dispatched to meet electricity demand and provide the aforementioned ancillary services. As of the en d of Q 2 2014, there are 1.47 GW ac 

### of CSP facilities operating in the U.S

. 8

7 

### U.S. Solar Market Insight TM 

### 2013 Year in Review Report.

8 

### U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014 report.

### 10



### 1B3. Solar Heating and Cooling (SHC) SHC technologies collect thermal energy from the sun and use this heat to provide hot water, space heating and cooling and pool heating for resi dential, commercial and industrial applications. These technologies displace the need to use electricity or natural gas. 9 

### The SHC industry currently has a goal of
300 GW th 

### of SHC by 2050. Deployment at this scale would provide enormous benefits for homeowners, businesses and taxpayers, and generate nearly 8 percent of the total heating and cooling needs in the U.S., resulting in nearly $100 billion annually in positive econ omic impacts. 10



## 1C. The EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Emissions from the Electric Sector The EPA has authority to reg ulate air pollution, including greenhouse gas (G HG ) emissions, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA regulates criteria air pollutants, s uch as smog pollutants, through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under §110 of the Clean Air Act. 11 

### For air pollutants not covered by NAAQS, the EPA may control emissions through §111. To employ this authority, the EPA is requi red to take a number of procedural steps. The EPA must first make an endangerment finding that an air pollutant causes harm to health and the environment. 12 

### Next, the EPA must identify the categories of stationary sources that cause or contribute significa ntly to air pollution that endangers the public health and welfare. 13 

### The EPA must then control air pollution for new sources in the identified categories under §111(b). 14 

### Once new sources in the identified categories are controlled, the EPA must
establish emission guidelines by which states regulate emissions from existing sources under §111(d).

The EPA has authority to regulate carbon emissions from EGUs under §111(d). In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007) held that greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon, are an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The EPA then conducted an endangerment finding and declared that GHG emissions, including carbon, endanger public health and welfare as a significant contributor to cl imate change. The EPA’s finding was then confirmed in the Court’s holding in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut , 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537

- 2538 (2011), which held that a common law right to seek abatement of carbon

- dioxide emissions from fossil fuel

- fired plants was displaced by the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions under §111. The EPA then identified large coal and natural gas plants (hereinafter referred to as “affected EGUs”) as stationary

9 

### For more information: http://www.seia.org/policy/solar

- technology/solar

- heating

- cooling

10 

### Solar Heating and Cooling: Energy for a Secure Future. Full report available here: www.seia.org/shca

11 

### NAAQS standards have been set for sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. ( http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html )

12 

### This finding is available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

13 

### CAA Section 111(b)(1)(A)

14 

### 42 U.S.C. §7411(b)(1)(B). EPA Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 77 FR 22392 (April 13, 2012) a nd 79 FR 1430 (January 8, 2014)

### 11

source categories which contributed significantly to carbon pollution and should be controlled. 15 

### The EPA then properly proposed carbon emissions standards from new affe cted EGUs. 16



### Upon proposing emissions standards for carbon from new affected EGUs under §111(b), the EPA must issue emissions guidelines for states to reduce carbon emissions from existing sources under §111(d). 17 

### The emissions guidelines must be based o n the best system of emission reduction (BSER) that the EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated for the affected EGUs. 18 

### Each state must then create an implementation plan that includes a standard of performance for carbon emissions from existing

s ources in compliance with the EPA’s emissions guidelines. 19



# 2. SEIA C omments on the EPA’s Proposal for Regulating Carbon Emissions from Existing Sources under Section 111(d) 20 

### The EPA issued a proposal for regulating carbon emissions from existing sources un der §111(d) on June 15, 2014. The EPA issued its proposal after unprecedented public outreach. SEIA applauds the EPA for its outreach efforts and supports the approach put forth in its proposal. Specifically, SEIA supports the “outside the fence” approa ch taken by EPA for determining the BSER, and the broad compliance options made available to the states. The EPA’s “outside the fence” approach follows the statutory scheme set forth in the Clean Air Act, and reflects current and widely anticipated regula tory and market developments.

While SEIA supports the framework put forth by EPA, SEIA believes that there are necessary adjustments to be made before the rule is finalized to ensure that the required carbon reductions are reflective of the application of the best system of emission reduction to affected EGUs . The following are SEIA’s recommendations for improving the proposal to most effectively reduce carbon emissions from existing sources in compliance with §111(d) of the Clean Air Act.



## 2 A. D etermination of the Best System of Emission Reduction EPA proposes that the best system for reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants is a
system

- wide approach based on the application of four building blocks that include on

- site measures
and measures taken to shift generation awa y from carbon intensive units. These building blocks are:

15 

### TTTT Sources

16 

### 40 CFR Part 60.

17 

### 40 CFR 60.22(a)

18 

### 40 CFR 60.21(e); CAA Section 111(a)(1)

19 

### CAA Section 111(d)(1)

20 

### The EPA is offering the opportunity to comment on the proposed BSER, the proposed methodology for

com puting state goals based on application of the BSER, and the state

- specific data used in computations (34835).

### 12

heat rate improvements; natural gas switching; renewable energy measures; and energy efficiency. 21 

### SEIA agrees with EPA’s approach for determining the BSER. 22 

### Sp ecifically, SEIA agrees with EPA that renewable energy measures, and solar measures especially, are necessarily part of the BSER. However, SEIA is also concerned that building block 3 (renewable energy measures) as it is currently calculated is incomplete because it does not contain current solar market data on cost and penetration rates, and it does not include distributed PV, which represents about 50% of the total U.S. solar market. Therefore, as it is currently written, EPA’s proposal does not accurate ly reflect the emissions reductions achievable through application of the BSER.



### 2A1. Determining the Best System of Emission Reduction as Adequately Demonstrated To determine the BSER, the EPA must identify the “system of emission reduction” that is the “best” and that is “adequately demonstrated” to reduce carbon emissions from the affected EGUs. 23



### First, EPA identifies systems of emission reduction. Once it has identified systems of emission reduction, the EPA is required to identify the “best” system of emissions reduction that has been “adequately
demonstrated” for the affected EGUs. 24



### The EPA’s inquiry into the “best” system of emission reduction has been established through substantial case law. To determine the best system, the EPA looks at the following factors: the system’s technical feasibility; emissions reductions expected from the system; whether the costs of the system are reasonable; whether the system will promote technological development; and the energy impacts of the
system. 25 

### The EPA has significant discretion in weighing the factors to determine the best system of
emission reduction. 26



### Once the EPA has identified the best system of emission reduction, it must determine whether that system has been adequately demonstrated. The BSER is adequately demonstrated if it is fairly

21 

### 79 FR 34855

22 

### The EPA proposes two alternatives to the four building blocks of the BSER. SEIA does not take a position on those two different approaches, but rather supports the use of measures taken at the plant as well as measures taken on the system to reduce carbon emissions from existing sources.

23 

### 42 U.S. C. §7411(a)(1); 40 CFR 60.22(a)

24 

### Id.

25 

### Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckleshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelhaus, 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Appalachain Power Co. v. EPA,416 U.S. 969 (1974); Sierra Club v. Costle, 675 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

26 

### EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. No. 12-1182, slip op. at 22 (U.S. April 29, 2014) citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 831 (1984)

### 13

projected into the regulatory future. Therefore, the system may be achieved by some, but not necessarily all, affected EGUs

. This test is aligned with the technology forcing intent of §111. 27



### 2A2. Solar Energy Measures are Part of the Best System of Emission Reduction and are Adequately Demonstrated

Solar energy measures are part of the BSER because they represent a system for reducing emissions from affected EGUs that is technically feasible, done at reasonable cost, promotes technological development, and does not negatively impact the electric system. 28 

### Solar energy measures are measures taken by states to reduce emissions from affected EGUs through the deployment of solar energy.



### 2A3. Solar Energy Measures are a System of Emission Reduction The EPA proposes that a system of emission reduction can include anything that reduces emissions from affected EGUs, ranging from add-on controls applied to affected sourc es’ smokestacks to control emissions, to measures that replace production or generation at the affected sources thereby reducing
emissions from those sources. 29 

### The EPA ’s definition is based in part on the broad definition of the term “system,” which is defined as “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or interconnecting network; a complex whole” 30 

### and the interconnected nature of the electric grid.

SEIA agrees with EPA’s proposal that a system of emission reduction can be a number of dif ferent measures, ranging from controls at the smokestack to measures that shift generation away from carbon intensive sources. Solar energy measures are one such system, as solar energy measures are used by states and EGUs to reduce carbon emissions by increasing the amount of solar deployed on the grid and shifting generation away from carbon intensive EGUs.



## 2B. Solar Energy Measures are Part of the Best System of Emission Reduction As stated above, solar energy measures are part of the BSER because they represent a system for reducing emissions from affected EGUs that is technically feasible, done at reasonable cost, promotes technological development, and does not negatively impact the electric system.

27 

### Po rtland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckleshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelhaus, 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Appalachain Power Co. v. EPA,416 U.S. 969 (1974); Sierra Club v. Costle, 675 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

28 

### Portland Cement A ss’n v. Ruckleshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973)

29 

### Clean Power Plan, Legal Memo at 51- 52.

30 

### SEIA agrees with the EPA that because the term “system” is not defined in statute or regulation, it is appropriate to take the ordinary meaning of the term.

### 1 4



### 2B1. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included as Part of the BSER Because Solar Energy
Measures are Technically Feasible A variety of solar technologies have been successfully deployed in the United States and around the world. From the first commercial solar projects installed i n the 1980s, to the rapidly

- increasing fleet of distributed and utility

- scale solar assets providing a significant and growing percentage of the nation’s power today, solar has demonstrated its capabilities and contributions to a cost

- effective, reliable

p ower supply.

1. Utility Scale and Distributed PV Should be Included in Building Block 3 Because Both Applications
of PV are Technically Feasible

PV technology is being installed on a utility scale and distributed basis at an increasing rate throughout
the country. The following chart shows the total installed solar PV capacity by state from 2006

- 2013. The chart includes both distributed PV and utility

- scale PV installations.

Solar Photovoltaic Installatio ns 2006

- 2013 and Cumulative (MW dc 

### ) 31



### State 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Cumulative (through 2013)
Alabama <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.6 0.8 1.9
Alaska <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Arizona 2.1 2.8 6.4 23.2 63.6 287.8 708.8 423.7 1,563.1
Arkansas <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.6 0.2 1.8
California 69.5 91.8 178.7 210.3 255.6 537.8 983.2 2,607.7 5,183.4
Colorado 1.0 11.5 21.7 22.9 62.0 75.5 102.9 58.0 360.4
Connecticut 0.7 2.5 5.3 8.7 5.6 4.5 7.5 37.5 77.1
Delaware 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 2.4 20.9 19.7 16.7 62.8
Florida 0.2 1.0 0.9 35.9 34.8 21.5 21.9 20.4 137.3 Georgia <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 1.6 5.1 8.2 88.5 109.9
Hawaii 0.7 2.9 8.6 11.5 18.5 40.5 114.3 153.0 358.2
Idaho <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.7 0.7 1.8
Illinois 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 11.0 0.7 26.7 0.5 43.4
Indiana <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 0.2 3.0 0.9 45.0 49.4
Iowa <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 3.4 4.6
Kansas <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 Kentucky <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 3.0 1.5 3.2 7.9

31 

### Co mpiled from SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight 2012 and 2013 and IREC U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 and 2013

.

### 15

Louisiana <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 2.4 10.8 11.9 28.0 53.4
Maine 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.6 1.7 2.5 5.3 Maryland 0.1 0.3 2.2 2.5 5.3 24.3 79.7 58.7 175.4
Massachusetts 1.5 1.4 2.9 9.5 20.4 36.4 123.2 222.6 445.0 Michigan <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 1.9 6.2 11.1 2.3 22.2
Minnesota 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.7 1.2 6.5 3.8 15.1 Mississippi <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.0
Missouri <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 16.6 30.4 48.9
Montana <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 0.9 3.0
Nebraska <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6
Nevada 3.2 15.9 14.9 2.5 68.3 19.4 225.6 46.9 424.0
New Hampshire <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 1.0 2.3 4.1 9.6 New Jersey 17.9 20.4 22.5 57.3 132.4 306.1 390.7 202.3 1,184.6
New Mexico 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.4 40.9 122.1 37.9 49.1 256.6
New York 3.0 3.8 7.0 12.1 21.6 68.3 55.6 61.1 240.5
North Carolina 0.1 0.4 4.0 7.9 28.7 45.5 122.4 261.1 470.1
North Dakota <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2
Ohio 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 18.7 10.9 48.3 18.5 98.4
Oklahoma <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 Oregon 0.5 1.1 4.8 6.3 9.9 11.9 20.6 6.4 62.8 Pennsylvania 0.2 0.1 3.0 3.4 46.5 78.2 31.3 15.9 180.2
Rhode Island 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.7 5.7 7.6
South Carolina <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.2 0.5 3.5 8.0
South Dakota <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Tennessee 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 4.8 16.3 23.0 19.8 64.8
Texas 0.7 0.6 1.2 3.8 25.9 51.5 54.7 75.6 215.9
Utah <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.4 2.3 5.6 6.0 16.0
Vermont 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.2 7.8 16.3 13.6 41.5 Virginia <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 1.9 1.8 5.2 2.2 12.6 Washington 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.8 2.9 4.2 7.2 7.9 27.4 Washington DC <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 3.5 7.2 2.3 2.6 16.5 West Virginia <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 2.2
Wisconsin 0.3 0.6 1.7 2.2 3.5 4.2 8.2 1.4 22.5 Wyoming <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 1.0

### 16

The below graph shows the yearly U.S. solar PV installations by market segment, showing that both utility scale PV and distributed PV should be incl uded in building block 3 because both applications are technically feasible. 32



### The following chart breaks out distributed PV and utility PV and shows installed capacity for all 50 states cumulative through 2013. 33



### Cumulative Solar Photovoltaic Ins tallations through 2013 (MW dc 

### ) 34


### State Distributed PV Utility PV
Alabama 1.4 0.5
Alaska 0.2 0.0

32 

### SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight

33 

### Note that these cumulative numbers from the U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014 report wil l differ from the numbers presented in Section 3B5 from the EIA. This is because the EIA data does not accurately capture all solar industry generation. See Section 3B5 for a further description of this.

34 

### Compiled from SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight 2012 and 2013 and IREC U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 and 2013

.

### 17

Arizona 485.4 1,077.7
Arkansas 1.8 0.0
California 2,438.7 2,744.7
Colorado 253.8 106.6
Connecticut 69.7 7.4
Delaware 29.7 33.1
Florida 69.7 67.6 Georgia 20.4 89.5
Hawaii 330.8 27.4
Idaho 1.8 0.0
Illinois 7.3 36.1
Indiana 5.6 43.8
Iowa 4.6 0.0
Kansas 1.1 0.0 Kentucky 6.6 1.3
Louisiana 53.4 0.0
Maine 5.3 0.0 Maryland 145.4 30.0
Massachusetts 386.7 58.3 Michigan 22.2 0.0
Minnesota 12.8 2.3 Mississippi 0.9 0.1
Missouri 48.9 0.0
Montana 3.0 0.0
Nebraska 0.6 0.0
Nevada 91.3 332.7 New Hampshire 9.6 0.0 New Jersey 1,021.1 163.5
New Mexico 66.1 190.5
New York 187.7 52.8
North Carolina 18.8 450.2
North Dakota 0.2 0.0
Ohio 74.0 24.4
Oklahoma 0.7 0.0 Oregon 47.0 15.8 Pennsylvania 158.6 21.6
Rhode Island 1.9 5.7
South Carolina 5.0 3.0

### 18

South Dakota <0.1 0.0
Tennessee 47.1 17.7
Texas 70.2 145.7
Utah 16.0 0.0
Vermont 24.6 16.9 Virginia 12.6 0.0 Washington 27.4 0.0 Washington DC 16.5 0.0 West Virginia 2.2 0.0
Wisconsin 21.4 1.1 Wyoming 1.0 0.0

a. Distributed PV Should be Included in Building Block 3 Because it is Technically Feasible

The below chart shows the growth of distributed PV installations from 2000

- 2014, demonstrating that
distributed PV should be included in building block 3 because it is technically feasible. 35

35 

### SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight.

### 19

As the chart shows, distributed PV is growing rapidly year over year. Distributed PV is generally broken into two segments: residential and non

- residential.

The residential PV sector represents homeowners who are installing solar. With falling solar pri ces and
the rise of 3 rd 

### party financing, more homeowners are going solar than ever before. Homeowners are either directly purchasing these solar systems, or leasing them through certain solar companies. The energy produced by homeowners is often used to o ffset the need for generation from affected EGUs or is counted towards clean energy requirements such as renewable portfolio standards.

The non

- residential sector typically represents those business owners who are installing solar systems. Solar energy g enerated from commercial units also reduces the need for generation from affected EGUs and is often counted towards clean energy requirements or used to make green claims by the companies that invest in the systems. See Section 2B6 on procurement of solar for more discussion of affected EGUs procuring distributed PV.

In addition to affected EGUs, some of the most well

- run and efficient companies are turning to solar energy to reduce their carbon footprint and hedge against risks associated with energy p rices and

### 20

climate change

. As of mid

- 2014, cumulative commercial deployment totaled 4,530 MW at over 41,800 facilities throughout the country, an increase of more than 34 percent over last year. A recent SEIA report “Solar Means Business 2014” shows that Wa l

- Mart leads all U.S. companies with 105 MW of installed capacity, with Costco, Kohl’s, Apple, IKEA, and Macy’s all having at least 20 MW. The report also found that growth in the commercial market is not limited to just California, as 129 million people

– 41%
of all Americans

- live within 20 miles of at least one of the more than 1,100 commercial solar installations that were analyzed

. 36



### It is also important to point out the percentage of the solar market that is comprised of distributed PV

. Note that i n all years, at least 40% or more of the total installed solar in each year comes from the distributed PV sector. This is shown the following graph, which breaks utility PV, CSP, and distributed PV from 2000

- 2016. 37

36 

### Solar Means Business Report, 2014. Available here: http://www.seia.org/research

- resources/solar

- means

business

- report

37 

### SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight.

### 21

b. Utility Scale PV Should be Included in Building Block 3 Because it is Technically Feasible

The below chart shows the growth of utility PV installations from 2000

- 2014, demonstrating that utility PV is technically feasible. 38 

### For further discussion of how utility scale PV is deployed by affected EGUs,

see Section 2B6 on solar procurement.

2. CSP Should be Included in Building Block 3 Because it is Technically Feasible

CSP technology is technically feasible and is being i nstalled throughout the country today . The following
chart shows the total installed solar CSP capacity from 2006

- 2013. For further discussion of how CSP is deployed by affected EGUs, see Section 2B6 on solar procurement.

38 

### SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight.

### 22 Concentrating Solar Power Installation s, 2006

- 2013 and Cumulative (MW ac 

### ) 39



### State 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Cumulative (through 2013)
Arizona 1.0 2.0 280.0 283.0
California 10.0 125.0 1,006.0
Florida 75.0 75.0
Hawaii 2.0 5.0 7.0
Nevada 64.0 64.0

3. Third

- Party Studies Verify That Solar Energy is Technically Feasible and Should be Included in Building Block 3
Several third

- party verified studies show the technical feasibility of all solar energy as well. Below two such studies are highlighted.

The Department of Energy (DOE) SunShot Vision study shows that solar energy can meet roughly 14% of U.S. electricity demand by 2030 based on widely anticipated cost reductions

. 40 

### Achieving the expected price targets is projected to result in the cumulative installation of approximately 302 gigawatts (GW) of PV and 28 GW of CSP by 2030. By 2030, this translates into PV generating 505 terawatt

- hours (TWh) per year of electricity or 11% of total U.S. electr icity demand, and CSP generating 137 TWh per year or 3% of total demand for a combined solar generation of 642 TWh in 2030, well more than the EPA’s total solar generation target of 8,722 GWh in 2030 under the alternative approach. 41 

### This is also 7,360% mor e than what t he EPA had estimated for solar. It should be noted that t he DOE Sunshot study also analyzed the grid integration and reliability aspect of this amount of solar generation on the grid, and found that solar could be added to the grid at the proj ected levels without adverse effects on grid reliability. See the Section 2B5 for more information on grid reliability and grid integration. See a
further breakdown of the Sunshot study below:

39 

### Compiled from: SEIA/GTM Research Solar Market Insight 2013

. 40 

### The DOE Sunshot Vision Study is available here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf

41 

### http: //energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf and the Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document, p.4.

### 23

Additionally, t he Rene wable Electricity Futures Study ( RE Futures ) conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows a modelling scenario with renewables achieving between 30%

- 90% of generation levels

. 42 

### The cost assumptions used to arrive at the 2030 generation levels in NREL’s report are higher than current industry projections. For example, t he U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014 report (see section 2B2 on full detailed cost descriptions) show s that solar is outpacing the 2030 cost assumptions within the NREL report . Therefore, solar is reasona bly expected to meet its share of the 80% by 2050 renewable electricity targets within the RE Futures study , and solar may exceed the solar targets put forth in the study.

Further, t he two graphs below show that , based on the cost assumptions in the RE Futu res study, solar can represent nearly 20% of total generated electricity in the high

- demand scenario for 2050, and at
least 12% in the low

- demand scenario for 2050.

42 

### The NREL Renewable Electricity Futures Study is available here: http://www.nre l.gov/analysis/re_futures/

### 24



### 2B2. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They are a Reasona ble Cost System to Reduce Emissions from Affected EGUs There are a number of ways to consider whether a system of emission reduction is reasonable cost, and EPA has broad discretion when making this determination. 43 

### Below, SEIA provides information showing that solar energy measures are reasonable cost under the methodologies proposed by the EPA for setting state goals. Further, SEIA provides data showing solar costs are falling in relation to other sources of energy, reinforcing the EPA’s position that sol ar energy measures are reasonable cost.

1. Solar Energy is Reasonable Cost under Both of EPA’s Proposed Methodologies for Setting State Goals, and Therefore Should be Included in the BSER In its proposal the EPA finds that renewables cost $10

- $40/ton under its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) approach and $30/MWh under its Alternative approach, which the EPA determines to be
reasonable cost. 44 

### SEIA agrees with EPA that renewable energy, including solar, is reasonable cost under

43 

### EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. No. 12

- 1182, slip op. at 22 (U.S. April 29, 2014) citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 831 (1984)

44 

### 79 FR 34869 and the Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document.

### 25

both approaches. However, the EPA should recognize that solar costs are even lower than projected by the EPA and distributed PV must be included in building block 3 because it is a reasonable cost emission reduction technology.

i. Solar Energy is Reasonable Cost Under the Alternative Approach Under the alternative approach, the EPA notes that RE deployment levels were modelled with a cost reduction of $30/MWh, a level that is consistent with the cost range of $10

- $40/metric ton of avoided

CO2 emissions. In a recent analysis of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) , NRDC updated the cost assumptions for solar and wind energy that are used in
the IPM model. 45 

### See Section 3B3 for a discussion on the updated costs. Th e model results show that with these updated costs for renewable energy, the overall nationwide cost of abatement for renewable energy is approximately $14/metric ton avoided carbon emissions in 2020, and $19/metric ton avoided
carbon emissions in 2030. Th ese costs fall well within the range of $10

- $40/metric ton of avoided carbon emissions that the EPA had initially set, and demonstrate that renewables, including solar, are a
reasonable cost emissions reduction measure.

ii. Distributed PV Should be Included in Building Block 3 Because it is Reasonable Cost When Compared to the Default Generation Mix

It should be noted that the abatement costs for renewable energy discussed above do not include distributed PV, as the IPM model does not look at retail costs as an input. The IPM model essentially looks at the incremental total system cost (i.e. $30/MWh cost to deploy renewable energy as a part of the best system) versus the emission reductions achieved (i.e. $19/metric ton avoided carbon emissions
in 2030 in the NRDC analysis) to determine what technologies should be deployed at reasonable cost. Since distributed PV is purchased and contracted by consumers and utilities at retail rates, and not wholesale rates, distributed PV cannot be entered into the IPM model as a piece of the incremental total system cost. Retail and wholesale electricity rates are simply not comparable in this regard.

The EPA stated in the Alternative RE Approach Technical Support document that “distributed generation RE technologies were om itted from the RE Alternative Approach because their market potential cannot
be tested in the current IPM framework.” 46 

### However, the difference between modelling methods for distributed PV versus other renewables is not grounds to exclude distributed PV fro m building block 3. In fact, exclusion of distributed PV on these grounds would be arbitrary and capricious because

45 

### During the comment period, SEIA worked with NRDC on improving the solar cost, performance, and generation data for use in the IPM model and NRDC analysis. http://www.nrdc.org/

46 

### EPA’s Alt ernative RE Approach Technical Support Document: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014

- 06/documents/20140602tsd

- alternative

- re

- ap proach.pdf

### 26

distributed PV is used to shift generation away from affected EGUs, and it is possible to accurately model distributed PV as part of buildi ng block 3.

Distributed PV can be included within the IPM model, as shown and elaborated further upon in Section
3B2 . Distributed PV is hard

- wired into the IPM model by using the distributed PV capacity projections
from the Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario. These capacity projections assume a certain cost assumption and were calculated using a model called SolarDS.

The capacity projections show the amount of solar (GW) that will be built at the given cost assumptions over the default generation mix within the model precisely because distributed PV is more economical. The SolarDS model inherently includes this comparison of distributed PV to other sources of electricity as it produces the output of solar. The capacity projections

- the output of Solar DS based on the cost

show that distributed PV should be included within the baseline mix of electricity in a state. For more information on the comparison of distributed PV to other sources of electricity, please review the PV
Annual Revenue Calculator an d PV Financial Performance Calculator sections of the NREL SolarDS Documentation and Sample Results report. 47



### The EPA will need to determine which costs to assume for input into the SolarDS model. To this end, the EPA should compare the Department of Ener gy’s Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario with current industry trends.
The Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario cost assumptions are $1.88/watt for commercial PV and $2.25/watt for
residential PV. The latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report (Q2 2014) shows that commercial distribu ted PV is currently $ 2.39 /watt and residential distributed PV is currently $3.92/watt. The decreasing trendline of these current industry costs from the SMI report places solar on track to meet the 2030 goals for the

- 75% scenario and to exceed the 2030 go als for the

- 62.5%. Under the

- 62.5% scenario, approximately 67.3 GW of distributed PV will be deployed instead of the default electricity mix based on cost by 2030. This significant level of projected distributed PV deployment based on the trendline of

c urrent industry costs demonstrates that distributed PV is reasonable cost when compared to the default electricity mix.

These cost assumptions may be a conservative projection as well, as an October 2014 notice from the Sunshot program projects that dist ributed solar prices are still on track to meet the Sunshot goal (a full

- 75% reduction in price) by 2020, which would result in higher demand for distributed PV systems than in

- 62.5% projec t ion. 48 

### Second, the SolarDS model assumes no further price decline s after 2020, when in

47 

### The NREL “ Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) Model: Documentation and Sample Results ” report is available here: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45832.pdf

48 

### U.S. DOE Sunshot, “Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections.” October 2014. Copy available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc t=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fny

- sun.ny.gov%2F

- %2Fmedia%2FNYSun%2Ffiles%2FMeetings%2F2014

- 11

- 06%2FSunShot

- Solar

-

### 27

fact many analysts expect that solar prices will continue to decline. Finally, the SolarDS model does not assume any carbon price or incentives for renewable energy beyond those already in place in 2012. 49



### Once EPA has determined that distributed PV is part of the BSER, it will need to factor distributed PV into the state goals. For a further discussion of how distributed PV can be factored into EPA’s state goal calculation, see Section 3B 2

.
The below graph shows the declining solar prices over the past 4 years and the 2030 Sunshot

- 62.5%
scenario.

c. Solar Energy is Reasonable Cost Under the RPS Approach

SEIA does not advocate for the RPS approach. For more discussion, see Section 3D

. However, SEIA agrees with EPA that solar energy is reasonable cost as part of building block 3 under the RPS approach.

Industry

Update.pdf&ei=W1dqVIzfO9W3yASv1oGIDg&usg=AFQjCNFhnGZs41wmZP0ch3ZWQbBBcb35TA&sig2=YfPjLEA6 Hz_ TNtkpn2SNrA&bvm=bv.79142246,d.aWw

49 

### NREL’s analysis assumed that the PTC and ITC expired in 2012 and 2016, respectively.

### 28

Under the RPS approach, the EPA has examined the cost of implementing renewable measures under an RPS policy. The EPA states, “Analysis of RE development in response to state RPS policies also finds historical and projected costs of RPS

- driven RE deployment to be modest.” The EPA goes on to cite a number of LBNL and NREL studies looking at the costs and benefits of state RPS policies. SEIA agrees that the cost of deploying rene wable energy measures, including solar, through state RPS policies is reasonable cost. A May 2014 joint study from LBNL and NREL analyzing the state level cost and benefits estimates from RPS policies found that “o ver the 2010

- 2012 period, average estimate d incremental RPS compliance costs in the U.S. were equivalent to 0.9% of retail electricity rates when calculated as a weighted

- average (based on revenues from retail electricity sales in each RPS state) or 1.2% when calculated as a simple average .” 50 

### For states with a restructured electricity market, this estimated incremental RPS compliance cost for retail rates can also be expressed in terms of the cost per unit of renewable energy required, estimated in the range of $2

- $48/MWh. 51 

### For states with a regula ted electricity market, the costs are in the range of minus $4

- $44/MWh. 52 

### The study also looked at the cost of renewable energy to reduce emissions through state RPS policies. The estimates of the benefits ranged from approximately $4

- $23/MWh of renewable g eneration, depending on the cost value
assumed for CO 2 

### , cumulating to roughly tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis depending on the state. The joint study also looks at a number of other benefits, including economic impacts and wholes ale market price reductions.

2. Solar Energy Measures are Reasonable Cost to Utilities Utilities are increasingly procuring solar energy because solar energy technologies, including utility PV, distributed PV, and CSP, have become reasonable cost resources when compared to other resources. Further, the various forms of solar technologies provide significant economic benefits beyond cost, such as price certainty, hedge value, and avoided infrastructure investment. For more information on procurement of so lar energy, see Section 2B6.

One of the primary methods of procurement is through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a solar developer. Many utilities are now signing PPAs in the $50

- $60/MWh range over 20 to 25 years , offering price certainty to both u tilities and ratepayers without any of the fluctuation in cost s that accompanies
fossil

- fuel plants, which are subject to variability in fuel costs throughout their operating lives, as
discussed below . In fact, Recurrent Energy, a devel oper of utility

- scal e solar PV, recently executed a

50 

### Note that substantial variation exists around the averages, both from year

- to

- year and across states. See page V, VI, and VII. Th e study, “ A Survey of State

- Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards ” is available here: http://emp.lbl.go v/publications/survey

- state

- level

- cost

- and

- benefit

- estimates

- renewable

- portfolio

- standards

51 

### Id.

52 

### Id.

### 29

power purchase agreement with Austin Ene rgy in Texas for less than $50/M Wh. 53 

### These costs will
continue to decline as economies of scale are achieved.

S olar projects being offered and installed today show that solar is already cost

- competitive with new and existing fossil generation in certain circumstances. For example, in 2013 Xcel Energy received approval from the Colorado Public Service Commission to procure 170 MW of solar strictly on a cost competitiveness basis. 54 

### In addition, solar recently outbid natural gas in a competitive evaluation for utility resource planning in Minnesota. 55 

### Furthermore, a recent NY Times article notes the following : “Ac cordi ng to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility

- scale solar energy is as
low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt

- hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1
cents a kilowatt

- hour on the low end and coal at 6. 6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows,
solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt

- hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.” 56 

### These competitive
costs are one of the reasons utilit i es are looking to include solar systems as part of a balanced energy portfolio.

In addition, solar energy offers price certainty to utilities because the fuel is free once the system is constructed. This allows costs to be transparent and fixed over the length of the contract, which may be anywhere from 10

- 30 year s. Even when conventional fossil

- based generators offer long

- term contracts, the actual energy price paid usually varies along with the underlying fluctuating fuel prices. 57 

### As a result, solar is seen as a valuable hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices. 58



### Further, distributed PV allows utilities to avoid significant infrastructure costs. A recent McKinsey analysis notes the following avoided costs with the deployment of distributed PV :

The impact on national energy systems can be significant. A recent report by the California Solar Initiative estimated that 1 to 1.6 GW per year of solar power generated by consumers would

53 

### http://www.greentech media.com/articles/read/Austin

- Energy

- Switches

- From

- SunEdison

- to

- Recurrent

- For

- 5

- Cent

- Solar

. 54 

### More info available at: http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Energy_News/News_Archive/Xcel_Energy_proposes_adding_economic_so lar,_wind_to_meet_future_customer_energy_demands

55 

### More info available at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/01/minn

- judge

- solar

beats

- natural

- gas

- for

- utility

- procurement

56 

### NY Times Article “Solar and Wind Energy Start to W in on Price vs. Conventional Fuels” from Nov. 24, 2014. Available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b usiness/energy

- environment/solar

- and

- wind

- energy

- start

to

- win

- on

- price

- vs

- conventional

- fuels.html

57 

### While fuel

- price hedging contracts exist, the terms of the contracts can be limited and tend to be very expensive.

58 

### More info available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59065.pdf ; In fact, Renewables Portfolio Standards, such as the California program, were initially adopted primarily for fuel diversity and hedging purposes, in

res ponse to the 2001 energy crisis that resulted in significant part from reliance on natural gas supplies.

### 30 supply the equivalent capacity of adding a new 500kV transmission l ine, estimated to cost nearly $1.8 billion in capital costs. Distributed generation could also provide other benefits, such as lower line losses due to shorter distances transmitted, productive use of unutilized real estate (rooftops), and environmental be nefits. It could be particularly relevant for heavily congested areas where adding new infrastructure is impractical. Distributed generation can also make the grid more resilient, since it would continue to function when central infrastructure is out of

co mmission. If renewable generation costs continue to fall and energy storage capabilities grow rapidly, we can imagine entire neighborhoods or factory complexes being served through distributed solar power. This could make remote housing and manufacturing p lants more viable by reducing the transmission capacity required from the grid or even eliminating the need to access the grid altogether. 59



### 3. Solar Energy Measures are Reasonable Cost to Ratepayers Solar energy measures are being adopted by states and utilities around the country because they are reasonable cost to ratepayers as well. Ratepayers are typically billed for their consumption of electricity
in kWh s. T he charge per kWh may include transmission and distribution se rvices, or they may be billed separately. Utility

- scale solar operates much in the same manner as a traditional fossil fuel plant, and the energy is generally sold to utilities at the wholesale price in the same manner as fossil plants

. Therefore, the rat epayer will often see no difference on the ir electric bill when energy comes from a wholesale solar generator rather than a wholesale fossil fuel generator.

Similarly, distributed PV has a negligible impact on the ratepayer and has been shown to provide a benefit to ratepayers in many circumstances. The benefit to the ratepayer will depend largely on whether the system is owned or leased, as well as other factors including where on the grid the system is located. If the system is owned or leased by the ratepayer, they will often be able to sell the excess energy they generate back to their utility reducing their overall bill. If the system is installed pursuant to a power purchase agreement, the ratepayer may be able to procure energy at a rate that is lower than the rate provided by the utility through a power purchase agreement. Further, ratepayers may be able
to avoid some transm ission and distribution service costs that they would be subject to if they were purchasing energy from a central station p lant, as the solar system is located on the customer site.

There are numerous third party verified studies that have looked at the costs and benefits of distributed

PV to the ratepayer. 60 

### While some studies show a net benefit and others a net cost to rate payers, when

59 

### See page 143

- 144. Analysis found here: 

### http://www.mckins ey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive_technologies

60 

### The following are examples of recent studies that have looked at the costs and benefits of distributed solar to the ratepayer: IREC 

### , A Regulator’s Guidebook: Calculating the Benefits and Costs o f Distributed Solar Generation , at 

### http://www.irecusa.org/wp

- content/uploads/2013/10/IREC_Rabago_Regulators

- Guide book

- to

-

### 31

taken as a whole the studies clearly show that distributed PV is reasonable cost to ratepayers. A recent report by the Rocky Mountain Institute completed a meta

- analysis of 16 distributed PV cost

- benefit studies, reflecting diverse levels of d istributed PV penetration levels. 61 

### The chart below shows a summary of the costs and benefits of including distributed PV to the grid. 62



### Assessing

- Benefits

- and

- Costs

- of

- DSG.pdf ; Hoff et al., The Value of Distributed Photovoltaics to Austin Energy and the City of Austin (Mar. 2006), at 

### ht tp://www.ilsr.org/wp

- content/uploads/2014/05/Value

- of

- PV

- to

Austin

- Energy.pdf ; Tom Beach, Crossborder Energy, The Benefits and Costs of Solar Distributed Generation for Arizona Public Service” (May 2013), available at 

### http://www.seia.org/research

- resources/benefits

- costs

solar

- distributed

- generation

- arizona

- public

- service ; Tom Beach, Crossborder Energy, Evaluating the Benefits
and Costs of Net Energy Metering in California” (January 2013), available at 

### http://votesolar.org/wp

content/uploads/2013/01/Crossbord er

- Energy

- CA

- Net

- Metering

- Cost

- Benefit

- Jan

- 2013

- final.pdf ; Tom Beach, Crossborder Energy,The Benefits and Costs of Solar Generation for Electric Ratepayers in North Carolina (2013), at 

### http://energync.org/assets/files/Benefits%20and%20Costs%20of%20Solar%20Generation%20for%20Rat epayers%20in%20North%20Carolina(2).pdf ; Energy & Environmental Economics, Nevada Net Energy Metering Impacts Evaluation , Prepared for NV PUC (July 2014), at 

### http://puc. nv.gov/uploadedFiles/pucnvgov/Content/About/Media_Outreach/Announcements/Announc ements/E3%20PUCN%20NEM%20Report%202014.pdf?pdf=Net

- Metering

- Study

61 

### http://www.rmi.org/Know ledge

- Center/Library/2013

- 13_eLabDERCostValue

62 

### Graph from page 22 of the following Rocky Mountain Institute study: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge

Center/Library/2013

- 13_eL abDERCostValue ; Note that there is a significant range of estimated value across the studies, due to differences in the regions, input assumptions, and methodological approaches. Thus, comparing the below studies show in the graph can be helpful and inform ative, but the aforementioned differences should be normalized first.

### 32

4. Solar Energy Measures Will Continue to be Reasonable Cost Because Industry Costs are Expected to Decline in the Fu ture

Costs across the solar industry are falling rapidly, which will lead to reduced overall costs for implementing solar measures to reduce emissions from affected EGUs. These costs are: installed costs, future installed costs, balance of system costs, and raw material costs.

### 33

a. Installed Costs Current installed costs for solar show that solar energy is already a cost

- competitive emissions reduction technology and prices continue to decline rapidly. As of Q2 2014, installed distributed PV prices have dropped by 8% over the last year and 39% since Q2 2010. Utility

- scale solar PV prices have seen eve n larger declines

- by 14% over the last year and 61% from Q2 2010. 63 

### Looking back further, the price to
install a distributed PV system has dropp ed by nearly 70% since 2001

- from $10.00/watt to $3.13/watt as of Q2 2014. 64 

### For distributed PV , the national weighted average residential PV installed system price for Q2 was $3.92/watt. Further, the national weighted average of non

- residential PV (commerc ial, industrial, gov’t and non

- profit) installed system price for Q2 was $2.39/watt. 65 

### The estimated utility scale PV national installed system price for Q2 was $1.81/watt, which is 14% lower than 2013 and 61% lower than 2010 (as noted previously). 66



### The t wo charts below help to illustrate these declining costs. The first chart shows quarterly cost declines by sector, while the second chart shows yearly blended average cost declines. 67

63 

### U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014 Report. Available at: www.seia.org/smi

. 64 

### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Tracking the Sun V and SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014

65 

### Id.

66 

### Id.

67 

### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Tracking the Sun V and SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014

### 34

### 35

b. Future Costs Future costs of solar are forecasted to decline as well, according to several third

- party verified studies.
The DOE SunShot Vision study uses the N REL Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) and Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) models to develop and eva luate a SunShot scenario (

- 75% cost reduction) and a reference scenario. Two alternative cost scenarios were also modeled, including a

- 62.5% scenario
and a

- 50% scenario. In both the Sunshot and reference scenarios, the models are used to develop a
least

- cost geographical deployment of solar technologies and other generating technologies (conventional and other renewable). 68

68 

### The DOE SunShot Vision study states, “ The scenarios assume the federal investment tax credit (ITC) and production tax credit (PTC) run through their currently established expiration dates

— end of 2016 and 2012, respectively

— but that existing supports for conventional technologies that are embedded in the tax code or through o ther provisions continue indefinitely. Further, the scenarios do not incorporate any additional costs for mercury and air toxins, carbon emissions, or other environmental externalities associated most strongly with conventional generation technologies. Key variables evaluated by the models include solar resource quality, cost of electricity, transmission requirements, reserve requirements, variability impacts, and projected fuel prices. For the SunShot scenario, solar technology installed system prices are assumed to reach the SunShot Initiative’s targets by 2020: $1/watt (W) for utility

- scale PV systems, $1.25/W for commercial rooftop PV, $1.50/W for residential rooftop PV, and $3.60/W for CSP systems with up to 14 hours of thermal energy storage capacity. The reference

### 36

The chart below shows the cost assumptions used in the DOE Sunshot scenarios. The chart has been
recreated from the DOE Sunshot stud y. 69



### Projected PV Installed System Prices and Performance (2010 U.S. Dollars/W) Utility PV Res. Rooftop PV

(Distributed PV) Commercial Rooftop

PV (Distributed PV)

Sunshot (

- 75%) SS

- 62.5% Sunshot

(

- 75%) SS

- 62.5% Sunshot

(

- 75%) SS

- 62.5%

$/W dc



### 2010 4.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00

2020 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.25 1.25 1.88

2030 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.25 1.25 1.88

2040 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.25 1.25 1.88

2050 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.25 1.25 1.88

CSP, which historically has been limited to larger utility

- scale plants and relatively fewer installations,
has comparatively less price history and can be expected to have a more granular price trajectory. Pricing for utility

- scale plants in many jurisd ictions is also kept confidential. The chart below shows the

scenario is modeled with moderate solar energy price reductions to enable comparison of the costs, benefits, and challenges relative to the reference case of achieving the SunShot price targets. ” Study available at: 

### http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf

69 

### Full chart available on page 43: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927_chapter3_0.pdf

### 37

cost assumptions used in the DOE Sunshot scenarios for CSP. 70 

### The chart has been recreated from the
DOE Sunshot study. Note the $/W ac 

### and not $/W dc 

### used for CSP. 71



### CSP

Sunshot

$/W ac 

### Hours of

storage Capacity

Factor

2010 7.20 6 43

2020 3.60 14 67

2030 3.60 14 67

2040 3.60 14 67

2050 3.60 14 67

Although the first commercial deployment of CSP was in the late 1980s, large

- scale deployment has only recently resumed a nd is now occurring worldwide. The D OE has issued multiple grants recently, which, along with company

- funded R&D, has helped reduce the costs of CSP, particularly CSP combined with Thermal Energy Storage (“TES”; when combined with CSP “CSP+TES”), which offers dispatchable sol ar power, including the ancillary services needed for reliability that traditionally have come from fossil

fueled generators. Cost of electricity from CSP plants depends on many factors, including capacity, location, and cost of debt and equity. Current co sts are therefore variable, as innovation and

70 

### The CSP prices are based on a project’s “overnight installed cost,” which is the total direct and indirect costs that would be incurred if the projects was built in an instant, void of a ny additional costs for financing the construction period. The number of hours of thermal energy storage for CSP is optimized in the ReEDS model, and is slightly different than the numbers in this table due to restrictions on the solar multiple within the ReEDS. Full chart available on page 43: 

### http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927_chapter3_0.pdf

71 

### Watts direct current (Wdc) is defined by the direct current arra y size of a PV plant as measured under standard test conditions (STC). It is the sum of the STC ratings of all the panels in the plant. Watts alternating current (Wac) is defined by the maximum AC output of all the inverters at a given plant. In cases wher e the DC power exceeds the AC capacity (beyond efficiency losses), the inverter will “clip” power, meaning it will only put out i ts maximum rated AC power. For a utility PV plant, an inverter loading ratio (ILR) of 1.3 would be typical. This means that a
p lant would have 1.3 MWdc of modules and a 1 MWac inverter. If the plant cost $2 million to build, it would have

cost s of $2.00/Wdc or $2.60/Wac. The se units are different ways of describing the same plant . However, knowing the DC array size (and other syst em characteristics) is extremely important because it has a closer relationship to energy harvest than does the inverter size.

### 38

deployment continues. However, several studies have shown that CSP+TES projects provide substantial value to the energy system, reducing the overall costs that energy customers pay and increasing the

extent to which PV and other intermittent renewables can be integrated onto the grid. For example,
NREL issued a report in November 2012, entitled “Simulating the Value of Concentrating Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage in a Production Cost Model”

. 72 

### In Septem ber 2014, the Concentrating Solar Power Alliance issued an updated report, entitled “The Economic and Reliability Benefits of CSP with Thermal Energy Storage: Recent Studies and Research Needs,” which both summarizes recent studies by
NREL and the L BNL , am ong others, and adds analyses that tie the results of those studies together. A recent NREL report shows that CSP+TES provides up to $30

- 60/MWh in flexibility benefits, enabling CSP+TES to contribute to reducing net system costs (the costs that energy cus tomers ultimately pay for energy). 73



### c. Balance of System Costs For PV systems, i t is also important to recognize the balance of system costs in comparison to the panel costs. The RE Futures study identifies a capital cost breakdown for a non

- tracking utilit y PV with a 10 MW (DC) install size project in 2012, as show in the pie chart below. 74 

### At the time of the RE Futures study, module costs at $1,400/kW dc 

### appeared to comprise approximately 50% of utility

- scale PV installation costs. Since that time, module co sts have declined by more than half while balance of system costs have also declined significantly, although to a lesser extent.

72 

### http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57376.pdf

73 

### Jorgenson, J., P. Den holm, and M. Mehos, “Estimating the Value of Utility

- Scale Solar Technologies in California Under a 40% Renewable Portfolio Standard,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report, TP

- 6A20

- 61685 ( May 2014 )

. 74 

### See page 42 of: http://bv.com/docs/reports

- studies/nrel

- cost

- report.pdf

### 39

Two recent reports from NREL acknowledged the balance of system costs for all solar and the fact that with falling modul e and other hardware costs, the total cost of a solar system is increasingly dependent on the “soft”, or non

- hardware costs. The reports found that solar financing and other non

- hardware costs now comprise up to 64% of the total price of residential solar energy systems. The report notes:

The authors found that in the first half of 2012, soft costs represented the majority of all costs

— 64% of the total price for residential systems, up from 50% of the total price in the first edition. Similar results were found for small and large commercial installations

— 57% of the total cost for small (less than 250 kilowatts) commercial systems (up from 44%); and 52% of the total costs for large (250 kilowatts or larger) commercial systems (up from 41%).For reside ntial systems, the greatest soft costs were supply chain costs ($0.61/watt), installation labor ($0.55/W), customer acquisition ($0.48/W), and indirect corporate costs ($0.47/W), such as maintaining office management and accounting functions. Other soft co sts examined for the report included costs for permitting, inspection, interconnection, subsidy applications and system design. 75



### As total installation costs have declined and continue to decline at a more rapid pace than previously expected, solar is incr easingly cost competitive with alternative sources of energy and other carbon
emission reduction measures.

75 

### Report available here: http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/5306.html

### 40

d. Materials Costs In addition, the RE Futures study also examined the cost and availability of the future supply of sourced materials for PV panels. U ltimately, the study found no concern over the availability of PV materials even in the scenario of planned significant deployment of solar PV globally. The study notes:

RE Futures does not identify any insurmountable long

- term constraints to manufacturi ng capacity, material supply, or labor availability for any of the renewable technologies considered in this study (see RE Futures Volume 2). Growth in renewable capacity additions globally and in the United States has been considerable over the last decad e, demonstrating the ability to scale manufacturing and deployment at a rapid pace. ... The estimated annual capacity of PV deployment is high, especially in later years, but PV manufacturing and deployment are scalable. Worldwide PV production capacity has been growing rapidly and is already comparable to the deployment levels projected for the latter years in many of the 80%

- by

- 2050 RE scenarios. Moreover, many of the renewable technologies are based on common materials that are not supply

- constrained. Even for PV, which uses some materials that may be supply

- constrained, worldwide production capacity is already sizable, and that capacity continues to scale rapidly. Even considering the High

- Demand 80% RE scenario, and worldwide demand for PV, given the vari ety of PV feedstocks used today and the possibility of newer ones being developed in the future, reaching the required levels of installed capacity need not be limited by the availability of raw materials. 76



### These facts illustrate that solar energy measures can be implemented at a reasonable cost, and that cost should not be an impediment to solar energy inclusion in the BSER.



### 2B3. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They Reduce Carbon
Emissions from Af

fected EGUs Solar energy is not a hypothetical way to reduce carbon emissions; solar energy generation significantly reduces carbon emissions today. Solar energy systems in the U.S. are expected to generate more than 20,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2014. 77 

### W ith one GWh of solar generation eliminating 690 metric tons
of CO 2 

### emissions, solar generation can be expected to avoid 13.8 million metric tons of CO 2 

### emissions in
2014. 78



### Emission reductions resulting from solar deployment are certain to grow. In 2013 alone, the solar industry grew 53 percent over 2012, installing 5.2 GW of solar generating capacity. On average, a new

76 

### http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409

- 1.pdf page 138

77 

### SEIA analysis based on data from SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2013 Year in Review

78 

### For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy

- resources/refs.html

### 41

solar project was installed in the U.S. every 4 minutes in 2013. 79 

### Solar energy accounted for 29 percent of new electric generation capacity installed in 2013. 80 

### An approximate 6.8 GW of new solar capacity is projected to come online in 2014. 81



### The EPA’s Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) can be used to calculate the carbon emissions reductions from solar energy using historic dispatch data. 82 

### The chart below shows the current
CO 2 

### , NO x 

### and SO 2 

### avoided in each AVERT region at current solar energy deployment levels. 83 

### Additional
information on evaluation, me asurement and verification (EM&V) from all solar energy, including distributed solar, is provided in the EM&V section of these comments.

AVERT REGION STATES WITHIN

AVERT REGION CUMULATIV

E CAPACITY (MW) CO 2



### EMISSIONS REDUCED (TONS) SO 2



### EMISSIONS REDUCED (P OUNDS) NO X



### EMISSIONS REDUCED (POUNDS)

California CA, UT 5171.70 4,433,300 705,700 6,340,000
Great Lakes/ Mid

Atlantic DE, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI,

NJ, OH, PA, VA, WI, WV 1241.90 1,325,700 6,069,800 2,406,700

Lower Midwest AR, KS, LA, MO, NM,

OK, TX 141.48 180,800 418,300 394,800

Northeast CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ,

NY, RI, VT 1408.35 1,113,600 1,972,900 1,574,000

79 

### U.S. Solar Market Insight 2013 Year in Review Report. Available at: www.seia.org/smi

. 80 

### U.S. So lar Market Insight 2013 Year in Review Report. Available at: www.seia.org/smi

. 81 

### SEIA analysis based on data from SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2013 Year in Review and EIA Electric Power Monthly, Decem ber 2013, Table ES3.

82 

### The AVERT tool statistically determines the marginal electric generating units (EGUs) on an hourly basis. The AVERT tool is free to use with a simple user interface designed to meet the needs of state air quality planners and other i nterested stakeholders, and can easily be used to e valuate county

- level emissions displaced at EGUs by EE/RE policies and programs, and to analyze the emission benefits of different renewable energy programs in multiple states within an AVERT region. The t ool can also be used to quantify the nitrogen oxides (NO x 

### ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions benefits of state and multi

- state renewable policies and programs. Read more here: http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/avert/index.html

83 

### Solar deployment data taken from SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2013 Year in Review and SEIA solar industry 2012 data. Report available here: http://www.seia.org/research

- resources/us

- solar

- market

- insight 

### . Hawaii and Alaska have been excluded; the total MW of cumulative capacity in each state have been split equally bet ween the utility PV and rooftop PV specifications in the model; states in multiple AVERT regions have had their cumulative capacity divided equally among the multiple AVERT regions the state is present in, with the exception of Texas. All Texas cumulative solar capacity was run in the Texas AVERT region.

### 42

Northwest ID, MT, NV, OR, UT,

WA, WY 312.70 329,800 389,800 785,200

Rocky Mountains CO, SD, WY 331.50 464,000 647,900 899,300

Southeast AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA,

MO, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV 927.03 959,800 2,975,400 1,486,000

Southwest AZ, CA, NM, NV, TX 1850.40 2,070,300 977,800 2,987,300
Texas TX, OK 201.20 203,600 408,800 236,800 Upper Midwest IA, IL, MI, MN, MO,

MT, ND, NE, SD, WI 72.43 94,500 286,000 170,800

As the EPA recognized correctly in its proposal, an increase in the amount of electricity produced from solar decreases the amount of electricity produced by fossil fuel power plants. Solar can potentially replace polluting sources on a 1:1 basis, depending on the combination of solar and other technologies deployed on the complex grid. For example, CSP with thermal energy storage can provide the equivalent of baseload, intermediate, or peaking conventional fossil

- fuel generation; i n other areas, PV combined with wind, storage and/or demand

- side resources could provide a complete substitute for fossil

- fired generation. As a general matter, when solar is placed on the grid it displaces electricity production from
a source that emits c arbon pollution, often at a high rate, such as a simple

- cycle natural gas generator.

Numerous studies have shown the extent to which renewable energy can effectively reduce emissions. The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, performed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), evaluated the impacts of operating the Western Interconnect with high penetrations of wind and solar. The study found that CO 2 

### emissions could be reduced by 29 percent to 34 percent, or the equivalent of 260

- 300 billion pounds per year when the Western Interconnect obtains 33 percent of electricity from wind and solar. 84



### In February 2014, PJM, the nation’s largest grid operator (with territory covering 13 states and Washington, DC), released a study analyzing a high penet ration of renewable generation on the PJM grid. The study considered scenarios of up to 30 percent wind and solar and found no significant operating issues. In addition, the study found that CO 2 

### emissions could be reduced by 28 percent in the

84 

### While this study presumed that the various electrical assets in the Western Interconnect could be coordinated in an optimal fashion, setting aside institutional barriers presented by differing operating regimes within the Western Interconnect, it demonstrates both the strong carbon reduction potential as well as need to reduce those counterproductive barriers. Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, available at: http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western_wind.html

### 43

“High Solar B est Onshore” scenario compared to the business as usual (BAU) scenario in the target year
2026. 85



### In February of 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released the SunShot Vision Study, a detailed report that examines the potential for and barriers to s olar PV and CSP in the U.S., while striving for reduced solar costs. The report states:

Solar energy reduces GHG emissions compared with most other sources of energy. Compared with the reference scenario, the SunShot scenario is estimated to reduce electr ic

- sector operational carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions by 181 million metric tons (MMT) per year by 2030 (an 8 percent reduction), and the estimated reduction by 2050 is 760 MMT per year for the SunShot scenario (a 28 percent reduction).... Significant reductions in U.S. GHG emissions are projected under the SunShot scenario. Combined with other efforts worldwide, these reductions have the potential to contribute significantly to the deceleration of global climate change. 86



### Furthermore, life

- cycle GHG emi ssions from PV and CSP, as assessed in the SunShot Vision study, are orders of magnitude lower than lifecycle GHG emissions from natural gas and coal power plants. 87



### a. Distributed PV Reduce s Emissions From Affected EGUs and Should be Included in Building
Block 3

As stated above, with one GWh of solar generation eliminating 690 metric tons of CO 2 

### emissions, solar generation can be expected to avoid 13.8 million metric tons of CO 2 

### emissions in 2014. 88 

### Of this

, distributed PV capacity (as of June 2014) will generate 10,450,000 MWh/year and displace 7,206,000 MT of CO2 per year. 89 

### The mode of carbon displacement for distributed PV is identical or slightly better than utility PV, as distributed PV does not need to factor in line loss. Th e above mentioned studies apply to distributed PV as well. Therefore, distributed PV is clearly an effective means of reducing emissions and must be included in building block 3.

85 

### PJM Renewable Integration Study, available at: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees

groups/committees/mic/20140303/20140303

- pris

- executive

- summary.ashx

86 

### For additional figures, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov /solar/pdfs/47927_chapter7.pdf 

### . Chapter 3 of the SunShot Vision study describes the SunShot and reference scenarios, including descriptions of the modeled electricity capacity and generation mixes and discussion of peak and baseload power resources.

87 

### Id.

88 

### For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy

- resources/refs.html

89 

### Solar data from U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014. See also: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy

resources/refs.html

### 44



### 2B4. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Because They Promote Technological Development When determining the BSER, EPA considers measures that promote technological development. As discussed above, solar energy measures throughout the United States have driven significant solar deployment and are expected to continue driving solar instal lations at an increasing rate. Alongside this rapid deployment are decreasing costs and increased emissions reductions.

i. PV Measures Promote Technological Development Further, new solar technologies and efficiencies of solar panels are continually being developed. NREL maintains a plot of compiled values of the highest confirmed conversion efficiencies for solar cells, as
shown in the chart below: 90

90 

### Devices included in this plot of the current state of the art have efficiencies that are confirmed by independent, recognized test labs (e.g., NREL, AIST, Fraunhofer) and are reported on a standardized basis. The measurements for new entries must be with respect to Standard Test or Reporting Conditions(STC) as defined by the global reference spectrum for flat

- plate devices and the direct reference spectrum for concentrator devices as listed in standards
IEC 60904

- 3 edition2 or ASTM G173. The reference temp erature is 25°C and the area is the cell total area or the area defined by an aperture. More at: 

### http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/cell_efficiency_explanatory_notes.pdf

### 45

A report by the McKinsey Global Institute called, “Disruptive technologies : Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy” notes the following for technological development of solar

energy: 91



### Technological advances that reduce the costs of renewable energy generation will be important

enablers of adoption. During the past two decades, the efficiency of solar panels (the percentage of solar energy converted into electricity) has risen to 15 percent; in laboratory tests, panels have achieved as much as 44 percent efficiency. The cost of solar cells has already dropped from nearly $8 per watt of capacity in 1990 to less than 80 cents. Further advances in solar and wind power technologies are under way. Thin film cells, which are made from compounds like cadmium telluride, copper indium gallium arsenide (CIGS), o r amorphous silicon (A

- Si), are being developed for PV use. These advances reduce the amount of material used in creating solar cells and can be “printed” on flexible surfaces, potentially reducing cost and increasing ease of application. Researchers are a lso working with nanomaterials, including polymer films that are less than 100 nanometers thick that could replace silicon cells and nanomaterial

- based coatings that repel water and that prevent dust and debris from sticking to panels.



### ii. CSP Measures Promot e Technological Development

The technologies used for CSP also promote technological development. The first commercial utility

scale CSP projects in the United Stated were built in the late 1980’s by Luz International. Luz built nine parabolic trough plant s in southern California that totaled 354 MWs

- an indication of the r obust nature of this technology

- all of these plants continue in operation today. Parabolic trough technology has continued to improve since the Lux plants were built, substantially incre asing receiver efficiency, reducing cost and weight of reflector structures, and updating control. Troughs remained the only commercial CSP technology until 2007 when an 11 MW commercial solar power tower went into operation in Spain. In the US, the Ivanp ah Solar Electric Generating System, a 377 MW plant with three steam power towers in California became operational in 2014. This is the largest commercial power tower facility in the world. As with trough technology, tower technology is rapidly improving, including new lightweight solar collector designs, advanced automation of assembly and installation of collectors, improved control systems, and higher temperatures that allow improved power cycle efficiency.

Since the first CSP plants went into commerci al operation, they have often incorporated thermal energy storage. The first of the Luz parabolic trough plants included three hours of thermal energy storage, which was used to help the plant meet a nighttime peak during winter months. More recently, ma ny parabolic trough projects in the U.S. and Spain have incorporated high

- temperature and highly efficient
molten

- salt thermal energy storage. The Solana 250 MW solar trough plant, in Arizona, is the first commercial plant in the U.S. to incorporate this t ype of storage. Solana, which became operational in

91 

### http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive_technologies

### 46

2013, incorporates 6 hours of thermal energy storage. The storage system at Solana allows the utility dispatch solar power to meet peak system loads and reliability needs in the summer and winter.

The f irst commercial solar power tower, in Spain, and a similar 20 MW tower included steam accumulators that allowed 30 minutes of buffer storage, enabling the plants to operate through transient cloud interruptions of sunlight. In 2011 the first commercial pow er tower with direct molten

salt thermal energy storage became operational in Spain, a 20 MW plant with 15 hours of storage. In a
direct molten

- salt system, the molten salt serves as both the initial heat transfer medium (the substance heated through con centrated sunlight) as well as the storage medium, as opposed to an indirect molten

salt system, in which another substance is used as the initial heat transfer medium (such as steam, specialized heat transfer fluids, or even air).The direct molten

- salt st orage enables this plant to operate 24 hours per day through much of the year.

In the United States, the 110 MW Crescent Dunes project is under construction, and is expected to become operational in 2015. This direct molten

- salt tower will incorporate 1 0 hours of thermal energy storage, and is expected to become operational in 2015. This plant will operate from noon to 10pm throughout the year. As with trough technology, tower technology is rapidly improving; with new lightweight solar collector designs, advanced automation of assembly and installation of collectors, improved control systems, integration of efficient thermal energy storage and movement to higher temperatures that allow improved power cycle efficiency.

DOE, which tracks the cost of renewab le technologies, estimates that between 2010 and 2013, the price of CSP fell from 21¢/kWh to 13¢/kWh 92 

### . Through new R&D in CSP technologies like DOE’s SunShot program, the advancement in CSP technology noted above, and the learning coming from deployment
of commercial projects in the US and around the world, CSP prices are expected to continue to
decrease.



### 2B5. Solar Energy Measures Should be Included in the BSER Be cause They Can be Reliably Integrated into the Electric Grid When establishing the BSER, the EPA considers the impact that systems of emissions reductions have on
the en ergy system and electric grid. Several studies have clearly shown that high levels of renewables, including solar energy measures, can be integrated into the grid without negat ively impact ing re liability or grid requirements. In fact, solar energy can improve grid reliability and provide benefits to the existing energy infrastructure, including reducing transmission losses and relieving congestion on the

92 

### US Department of Energy, http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/concentrating

- solar

- power

### 47

grid. There are several resources the EPA can look to for understanding how solar fits into the grid in terms of reliability and higher penetrations of renewable energy. 93



### Reliability and Transmission Benefits of Solar

Solar energy can be configured and operated to provide various reliability services and transmission benefits that will be essential to electric power system operations in conjunction with the state implementation of §111(d) regulations.

CSP technologies employ conventional synchronous turbine generators and i nherently possess valuable system reliability attributes, such as, but not limited to, active and reactive power support, dynamic voltage support and regulation, voltage control and some degree of inertia response. With the integration of thermal energy st orage, CSP facilities can be fully dispatched by utilities and system operators, meaning that the plants are capable of ramping power output up and down to meet changing energy demand and supply, without material efficiency losses. CSP with storage plants can be a significant source of essential grid flexibility services, such as ramping, regulation, load following reserves and spinning reserves, which are critical to a reliable system. These services are typically provided by fossil

- fired generators operat ing at sub

- optimal heat rates, which may increase their
emissions.

To explain further, t he ability to store and produce energy at any time enables CSP projects to provide or withhold power as needed for the grid. For all intents and purposes it has all the attributes of a fossil fueled power plant, without carbon emissions. 94 

### CSP plants can be built in a number of configurations, ranging from baseload to peaker. These attributes include:

a. System Benefits: The primary benefit provided to the grid system by CSP plants with storage is the ability to dispatch power whenever it is needed most, day or night. In addition, CSP with storage can provide ancillary services and reduce integration costs while providing the same reactive power quality attributes of traditi onal thermal plants. The important role of storage and reactive power in maintaining grid reliability is emphasized in NERC’s report Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan, Initial Reliability Review , November 2014.
b. Energy Value : Thermal energy storage allows CSP plants to shift electricity generation to the highest value hours across the operating day, overnight, or the next day as needed by the utility or system
operator.

93 

### S ee the NREL Renewable Electricity Futures Study, available here: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ See also the study “ Integrating High Penetration Renewables: Best Practices from Internationa l Experience ” available here: http://www.jisea.org/high_pen.cfm

94 

### Some CSP plants that do not incorporate storage use a de minimis amount of fossil fuels to increase efficiency at the beginning and end of t he solar day, or during transient cloud cover.

### 48

c. Capacity : At low penetrations of solar power on the grid, solar correlates well with daily peak demands. As solar penetration increases, however, peak demand shifts to the evening hours. CSP with storage allows for shifting energy into the periods of highest demand or value. CSP plants can also be hybridized to use natural gas or other fuels to provide high availability even on cloudy days.
d. Power Quality : Since CSP projects typically generate power with a steam turbine, just as most fossil

fueled plants, they have the same power quality characteristics as those plants. These attributes include reactive power support, dynamic voltage support, voltage control, inertia response, and primary frequency control.

e. Ancillary Services : CSP plants with thermal energy storage can provide spinning reserves, non

spinning reser ves, and regulation and they can operate efficiently at part load.
f. Integration : CSP with storage can vary its production to complement other renewables that are more dependent on the times at which the resource is present (whether sunlight or wind),transit ional periods, helping to lessen grid ramps and providing both rapid response and significant supply of power at times that other resources are unavailable.

With supportive policies and standards in place, utility

- scale solar PV can include advanced featur es that enable it to operate more like conventional power plants and actively contribute to the stability and reliability of a regional grid as part of a balanced energy portfolio. 95 

### Some of these features include voltage regulation, active power controls, ramp

- rate power controls, fault ride

- through, and frequency response controls. These capabilities are managed through the use of a plant

- level controller specifically engineered to regulate real and reactive power output of the solar facility such that it behaves as a single large conventional generator, although within the limits dictated by the intermittent nature of the
solar resource. These advanced features can enable solar PV t o provide a state or region with additional system flexibility by responding to utility and independent system operator instructions.

D istributed PV can provide wholesale ancillary services in the same fashion as utility

- scale assets and can also provide local ancillary services beyond what utility

- scale assets are capable. These services include but are not limited to frequency regulation, frequency response, spinning and non

- spinning reserves, voltage and reactive power support. In addition, distribute d PV can provide incremental ancillary services on the local or distribution level. Local voltage support is critical to operating the distribution system within system constraints, and distribution system operators rely on a distributed set of voltage

reg ulating equipment to provide that support. D istributed PV can augment and sometimes replace this equipment, providing real and reactive power support as identified by the distribution operator.

On an aggregated basis, utility

- scale and distributed PV reso urces provide significant reliability and transmission benefits to a state or regional grid. Even if solar PV output varies at a few individual

95 

### See “Grid

- Friendly” Utility Scale PV Plants, First Solar at 3 and 13 (August 13, 2013).

### 49

locations due to localized cloud coverage, when the sum of the solar installations in a geographic area is

asses sed, the variability is reduced and can be managed by the grid operator. In a recent study regarding the integration of wind and solar in PJM, General Electric International, Inc. (GE) found that PJM’s large geographic footprint significantly reduced the m agnitude of variability

- related challenges as compared to smaller balancing areas. 96 

### GE noted that an individual solar PV plant’s variability is significantly reduced when solar plants are aggregated and located in a geographically diverse manner throughout
PJM. 97



### Further, targeted deployment of solar generation in congested areas can provide relief to transmission and distribution systems, defer costly transmission upgrades, and help maintain grid reliability. For example, unlike central station power plant s, solar installed on

- site does not experience transmission and distribution system losses, which can be as high as 7 percent on a utility distribution system and up to 20 percent at the time of system peak. 98 

### These avoided line losses through solar DG cont ribute to
further CO 2 

### reductions. Similarly, utilities may site small utility

- scale power plants in specific locations to ease congestion on a particular transmission line.

Finally, solar technologies that require transmission investment often do not requi re pipelines, coal transport or the associated production and processing infrastructure needed by coal and gas industries. This has the potential to save immense costs as the energy infrastructure in the U.S. ages and requires repairs.

Solar Energy Can be Integrated into the Grid at High Penetration Levels

As renewable energy becomes a larger component of the electricity sector, the generation profile of the electric resources available throughout the day is changing. For example, solar and wind resources peak in terms of output at specific times depending on geography and other factors. T he addition of renewable energy has spurred utilities and regulators to think differently about matching supply and
demand. The EPA’s proposal to require affected source s to shift generation correctly reflects regulator and utility actions to accommodate more renewables in the grid today and moving forward, and is thus follows the forward looking intent of 111(d).

Utilities and policymakers are already addressing the cha nges to grid operations presented by increased renewable penetration. For example, in areas of an electric grid where the peak energy use is in the late afternoon, solar systems can be configured to coincide with peak demand later in the day. Solar can als o be coupled with storage technologies to match their output to local power demand patterns, including

96 

### See PJM Renewable Integration Study, General Electric International, Inc. at 12 (February 28, 2014) (GE Study).

97 

### See I d. at 12 and 15.

98 

### For more information, see the paper, “Valuing the Contribution of Energy Efficiency to Avoided Marginal Line Losses and Reserve Requirements” available at: www.rapo nline.org/document/download/id/4537

### 50

evening peaks. This can be done economically, if supported through appropriate policies, pricing options, and program offerings. 99 

### For a discussion of str ategies to address the changes to grid operations presented by renewables, we recommend Teaching the Duck to Fly , a paper recently published by the Regulatory Assistance Project. 100



### Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that solar and wind energy can inc rease costs and energy system emissions due to an increased need to cycle conventional power plants in response to variable renewable output. 101 

### However, such claims have been proven to be overstated, and could largely be avoided through a balanced portfolio of complementary solar, wind and other clean energy resources. The Western Wind and Solar Integration study found that not only is a high renewable energy penetration achievable, but also that any increases in costs or emissions associated with increased cycling of fossil fuel power plants are nominal compared to the overall cost and emissions savings associated with reduced generation from fossil fuel power plants. 102 

### The PJM Renewable Integration Study reached a similar conclusion: any increased costs asso ciated with increased cycling of conventional generators are dwarfed by the savings in fuel costs. 103



### Further, a recently released NERC report expressed concerns regarding the impact of high penetration renewables on the grid as a result of the Clean Power Plan. The report cited concerns such as the need to build out new infrastructure, the inability for renewable energy to ramp up as needed, impacts on reliability, and an overreliance on natural gas. However, upon review the report appears to be very preliminary and not based on any modelling. In fact, the main concerns regarding renewables integration have been rebutted or are currently being addressed by regulators in states throughout the country. For example, The SunShot Vision Study, the Renewable Energy Futures Study, the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, the forthcoming Wind Vision Study (all NREL), the Minnesota Renewable Energy Integration and Transmission Study 104



### , and the PJM Renewable Integration Study (GE) show that renewables, including solar, can be integrated at high levels without significant issue.

99 

### See “Teaching the Duck to Fly: Integrating Renewable Energy,” available here: http://www.raponline.org/featured

- work/teach

- the

- duck

- to

- fly

- integrating

- renewable

- energy
100 

### Id.

101 

### Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, available at: http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western_w ind.html (Citing cycling concerns at pg. vii)

102 

### Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, available at: http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western_wind.html

103 

### PJM R enewable Integration Study, available at: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees

groups/committees/mic/20140303/20140303

- pris

- executive

- summary.ashx

104 

### Minnesota Renewable Energy Integration and Transmission Study, Final Report, October 31, 2014 ( http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/FINAL

- MRITS

- Report14.pdf )

### 51



### 2B6. Solar Energy Measures are Adequately Demonstrated Because They are Currently Being Used by Utilities and Other Owners of Affected EGUs Once the EPA has established that a system of emission reduction is technically feasible and reduces emissions at reasonable cost, it must determ ine whether the system has been adequately
demonstrated.

Solar energy measures have been adequately demonstrated because they are currently being used by owners of affected EGUs, including utilities and independent power producers, to shift generation aw ay from fossil resources and diversify their energy mix with cleaner resources. For example, NRG, Inc., which owns a significant energy portfolio comprised of both fossil and renewable energy assets, recently
announced that it intends to reduce its carbon emissions by 2050 through divestment of dirty fossil
resources and investment in renewable resources such as wind and solar. 105



### In many states some solar and wind technologies have already reached grid parity, making the utilities’ choice to install or pur chase renewable energy over fossil resources a decision based solely on price

. 106 

### As previously noted

, utilities can now sign solar power purchase agreements for $50

- $60 /MWh

.

Further

, in some cases solar is even competitive with base load generation . For example, a new conventional natural gas combined cycle power plant costs $66/MWh while a new conventional coal fired power plant costs $96/MWh. In some cases the interest in solar generation has created a backlog of applications for interconnection; in oth ers, utilities have combined solar procurement with their long term resource planning and procurement due to the competitive price and hedge value of solar relative to natural gas and other generation.

Further, utilities have become heavily involved in t he valuation and procurement of distributed PV through RPS policies, value of solar dockets, and direct ownership as the price of distributed PV drops and the benefits to both the grid and ratepayers is being realized.

Below is a discussion of solar procu rement by entities that own or operate affected EGUs . Each of the models discussed below shows that utility scale and distributed PV, as well as CSP and SHC, can be procured by utilities to reduce generation (and emissions) from affected units. See Append ix E for
further information.

105 

### http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/business/energy

- environment/nrg

- sets

- goals

- to

- cut

- carbon

emissions.html?emc=eta1&_r=1

106 

### http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy

- environment/solar

- and

- wind

- energy

- start

- to

- win

- on

price

- vs

- conventional

- fuels.html?_r=0

### 52

1. Distributed PV is Adequately Demonstrated and Should be Included in Building Block 3
Because Utilities and Other Owners of Affected EGUs Currently Procure Distributed PV

Utilities and other entities that own affected EGUs are procur ing distributed PV on an increasing basis. Some of the most common examples are residential systems, commercial systems, community solar,
and distributed solar RECs. Examples are discussed in the next section under “Solar Procurement
Methods” and provided in Appendix E

.

2. Solar Procurement Methods 107



### a. Solar Purchases

P urchases of solar energy output can take on a number of different forms, but predominately are comprised of power purchase agreements (PPAs), feed

- in tariffs (FITs), value of solar r ates, and excess generation net metering contracts. All can be constructed to various contract lengths and amounts. A few examples are listed below. For a list of further examples and program descriptions, see Appendix E

.

 Virginia Dominion Power Renewable Energy Tariff : Under the tariff, the utility enters into a PPA with the solar energy supplier, thereby creating competition among generators and helping to lower renewable energy prices. 108



###  PSEG Wyandot Solar Farm Contract : PSEG Solar Source, LLC contracte d with Ohio Power Company, a subsidiary of AEP, for a 12MW solar PV project that was built in 2010. 109



###  City of Palo Alto Utility Solar Rate: Through its Palo Alto CLEAN program, CAPU purchases electricity generated by solar electric systems located in CAPU’s service territory at a solar rate that reflects an estimated value of solar. As of February 3, 2014, CAPU is offering to purchase up to 3 MW of solar electricity.

 Xcel Value of Solar Tariff : In Minnesota, the Commission has authorized Xcel to file a Val ue of Solar Tariff with the Commission. Under the tariff, Xcel will pay a solar rate to solar customers in exchange for their solar energy. This solar energy will be generated by distributed PV systems (mostly residential rooftop) . Xcel will receive the solar REC, which Xcel can then use to comply with its renewable energy standard requirements in Minnesota. The legislation enabling the tariff requires the Commission to consider the environmental benefits of solar in determining

107 

### The following procurement definitions and examples are taken from the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) database. SEPA maintains a comprehensive utility solar database that details all utilities and the solar projects within the portfolio of the utility.

108 

### http://media.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs

- and

- centers/steyer

- taylor /State

- Policy

Report

- low

- res.pdf

109 

### http://usd.solarelectricpower.org/summarytables/index.cfm?view=projects

### 53

the value of solar. 110 

### Th e Commission included the social cost of carbon in its final methodology for determining the value of solar. 111



###  Five CSP plants, with a total capacity of 1,300 MW, were recently built under long term PPAs ; the power from these plants was purchased by Arizon a Public Service, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and NV Energy. Specifics of these plants are presented in Appendix B.

b. Solar Ownership

This refers to ownership and operation of solar electricity resources as enterprise assets by entities that own or operate affected EGUs . The most common evidentiary benefits of the ownership model are the ability to provide stable prices, large

- scale market activity, and/or procurement risk mitigation. A few examples are listed below. For a li st of further examples and program descriptions, see Appendix E

.

 SCE&G Distributed PV RFP : On August 21, 2014, SCE&G announced plans to contract for several small distributed PV installations. For example, the company’s North Charleston installation will be built on the 3 acre site of a former gas facility with a generating capacity of 300

- 500 kW. This was done in conjunction with the passing of the Distributed Energy Resource Program Act, which is intended to allow increased penetration of utility and dis tributed PV by SCE&G throughout South Carolina.

 NY Reforming Energy Vision Docket: 112 

### Utilities have requested authority to construct and own distributed energy resources, including distributed PV, in New York State. 113 

### The proceeding is part of New York’s e ffort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and bring the benefits of distributed energy resources to more ratepayers at affordable rates. These resources include various types of distributed PV including residential rooftop, commercial PV, and community solar.

 Duke Energy Corp Utility PV Ownership : Duke Energy recently announced plans to invest $500 million in new solar energy facilities across North Carolina, including direct ownership of 128MW of utility

- scale solar to be built at 3 sites.

c. Unregulate d Activities

This refers to business models adopted by unregulated entities, such as holding companies or unregulated subsidiaries of IOUs. These unregulated bodies principally participate in the solar markets

110 

### Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 216B.164 as amended. (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=85&year=2013&type=0)

111 

### http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/MN

- VOS

- Methodology

- FINAL.pdf

112 

### NYPSC 14

- M

- 0101 ( http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/26BE8A93967E604785257CC40066B91A?OpenDocument )

113 

### See Staff Straw Proposal at 67

### 54

either by developing and owning solar install ations, by selling solar power output to load

- serving utilities, or by making financial investments in the solar ind ustry. An example is listed below. For a list of further examples and program descriptions, see Appendix E

.

 Southern Power Utility Scale PV Ownership : Southern Company, a subsidiary of Southern Power, has acquired the Solar Gen 2 150 MW facility in California from First Solar, Inc. Along with other projects, Southern Company now owns more than 400 MW of solar generating capacity that it offer s to its customers and that can be used to shift generation away from dirtier fossil

resources.

d. Community Solar

In its most basic form, a utility community solar program consists of one or more larger utility

- managed photovoltaic projects from which cus tomers can purchase a fractional share of the electricity output to virtually offset their electric bill as if the solar system were on their pr operty, i.e. net metered. An example is listed below. For a list of further examples and program descriptions, s ee Appendix E

.

 Colorado Solar Gardens : Colorado’s Solar Gardens is one of the most successful shared renewables programs, with shares in the projects selling out about 30 minutes after they were announced. The CO IOUs are required to purchase the energy fr om the projects, capped at 6 MW per year from 2011

- 2013. Due to the success of the program, most CO IOUs decided to continue supporting the Solar Garden projects by purchasing the energy. 114



### e. Property Leasing

This topic captures programs where utilities or other entities have leased customer property for the installation of one or more solar projects. Under this model, customers are typically compensated with a nominal annual lease payment in exchange for access to the property over a set contract term. A couple examples are listed below. For a list of further examples and program descriptions, see Appendix E

.

 Arizona Public Service Luke Air Force Base Facility : APS recently partnered with Luke Air Force
Base . Under the agreement, APS leased 106 acres from the Air Force to construct a solar plant that will “help save the Air Force money” and allow both “Luke and APS to meet their renewable energy generation goals.”

 Lakeland Electric Solar Water Heating Program : Lakeland Electric, a utility based in Florida , has been offering a leasing program for solar water heating systems for the past 15 years. 115

114 

### http://sharedrenewables.org/index.php?option=com_legislation&view=listing&stateCode=CO

115 

### For more information on the program, see here: http://www.lakelandelectric.com/Customers/ProgramsServices/SolarWaterHeater.aspx

### 55

f. Requests for Proposals

Utilities often issue requests for proposals as part of their efforts to increase solar or renewable energy more broadly within their service territories. A utility

- issued RFP may either seek a specific single partner, or just as likely announce that a var iety of projects are being sought such that, when combined, allow for a target amount of solar/renewable energy generation to be reached. An examples is listed
below. For a list of further examples and program descriptions, see Appendix E

.

 Seattle City Light Renewable Energy RFP : Seattle City Light recently announce an RFP to procure 150,000 MWh of renewable energy or renewable energy credits per year. Sources must qualify for Washington’s State’s renewable energy portfolio standard. City light has sta ted it will consider a broad range of proposals and contractual arrangements.

g. Merchant Solar Plants

A merchant plant is a power plant built for the purpose of selling directly to the wholesale electricity market, rather than under contract. While mercha nt plants are traditionally fossil plants, solar companies are now constructing merchant plants that will sell solar energy directly in wholesale spot markets. The off takers in these markets are generally utilities that may choose to purchase from a sola r plant rather than a fossil plant , which allows utilities to reduce emissions from their overall energy mix. An example is listed below:

 First Solar Barilla PV Plant : First Solar has recently completed the initial 18MW phase of the Barilla PV plant in Texas, the first plant in the state to operate without a power purchase agreement. This merchant solar plant, located in West Texas, will instead sell electricity on Texas’ ERCOT grid spot market. 116



### h. Solar REC Purchases

Utilities around the country purchase solar RECs and distributed generation renewable energy credits ( RECs ) from solar systems to comply with state renewable portfolio standards. One of the primary
motivations of such standards is to shift generation away from affected EGUs and towards lower emitting renewable energy resources. Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio standards that include solar and distributed solar carve

- outs. Under these requirements, utilities are requir ed to purchase solar renewable energy credits ( SRECs ) from distributed solar systems that are then used to reduce the utility’s overall reliance on carbon emitting resources. A utility will generally issue an RFP to purchase RECs when purchased in large qu antities. The primary goals of state

116 

### http://www.pv

- tech.org/news/first_solar_completes_merchant_pv_power_plant_in_texas

### 56

solar requirements are to reduce emissions, stimulate economic activity, hedge against fossil fuel prices, and improve grid resiliency and reliability through increased solar deployment

. 117 

### These goals are clearly aligned with the requirements for establishing the BSER as set forth under 111(d). For a full list of solar RPS requirements, see DSIRE Solar Policy Guide. 118



###  Nevada Energy Integrated Resource Plan: Nevada Energy IRP counts distributed PV towards the NV RPS, so di stributed PV penetration is tracked closely and is included as part of the utilities' overall resource plan.

 New Jersey RPS § 14:8

- 2.1 Purpose and scope: The purpose and scope of the NJ RPS states: “ (a) Each supplier/provider, as defined at N.J.A.C.
14:8

- 1.2, that sells electricity to retail customers in New Jersey, shall include in its electric energy portfolio electricity generated from renewable energy sources. This subchapter is designed to encourage the development of renewable sources of electricity and new, cleaner generation technology; minimize the environmental impact of air pollutant emissions from electric generation; reduce possible transport of emissions and minimize any adverse environmental impact from deregulation of energy generation; and support the reliability of the supply of electricity in New Jersey. ”

 New York RPS Objectives ( Case 03

- E

- 0188): 119 

### The objective of the NY RPS states: “ New York’s Environment: improve New York’s environment by reducing air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, and other adverse environmental impacts on New York State, including upon underserved communit ies, of electricity generation... ”

i. Utility Engagement in the Valuation of Distributed PV

As distributed PV generation becomes a larger portion of the energy mix, many utilities are working to properly value distributed PV generation. Currently, there have been 15 value of solar studies or proceedings undertaken by states. These proceedings involve dozens of s takeholders engaging in a robust analysis of the benefits and costs of solar to the utility, ratepayers, and the grid. In addition, there are active dockets in Louisiana, South Carolina, and New York evaluating the benefits and costs of
distributed PV.

117 

### www.dsireusa.org/solar/solarpolicyguide/?id=21

118 

### Id.

119 

### Or der Regarding Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard ( http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/Web/85D8CCC6A42DB86F85256F1900533518/$File/301.03e 0188.RPS.pdf?OpenElement )

### 57

F inally, t he graph below shows methods that utilities have used to procure solar energy outside RPS requirements in the past 12 months (Nov. 2013

- Nov. 2014):

120



### Each of the models discussed above shows that utility scale and distributed PV, as well as CS P and SHC, can be procured to reduce generation (and emissions) from affected EGUs.



### 2B7. Solar Energy Measures Avoid Health and Environmental Concerns Associated with Dirtier Sources of E nergy. Solar energy does not produce as many costly externalities as fossil sources. 121 

### Emissions from coal power, for example, can cause bronchitis, asthma, heart disease, water pollution, land degradation and

120 

### Chart from November 2014, GTM Research Utility PV Tracker: http://www.greentechmedia.com/pv

- tracker

. 121 

### Externalities are defined as the costs unaccounted for by the price of a product.

### 58

more
— all in addition to climate change. 122 

### One study concluded that, when monetized, the “social
cost” of coal

- fire d power could be as high as 60 percent of residential electricity prices. 123 

### Similarly, the EPA determined that particulate exposure from coal

- fired power costs Americans between $110 billion and $270 billion each year. 124 

### When energy sources are adjusted to a ccount for these externalities, solar energy becomes even more cost

- competitive. 125



# 3. D etermination of State Goals
Once the EPA determines the BSER that has been adequately demonstrated for the affected EGUs , it calculates the emission limitation achievable through the application of the BSER to the affected
EGUs

. 126 

### The emission limitation is expressed as an emissions rate to the state in the emissions guideline issued pursuant to 40 CFR 60.22(b). 127 

### In the imme diate rulemaking, the emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER is the state goal. 128 

### Each state then develops an implementation plan that includes a standard of performance for affected EGUs to meet the emissions guideline. 129 

### The
standar d of performance, when taken as a whole, must achieve the required emissions performance level required by the EPA. 130



## 3A. The Proposed State Goals do not Reflect Em issions Limitations Achievable

t hrough Application of the BSER to Affected EGUs.
As discu ssed above, the BSER as proposed by EPA does not properly account for solar energy measures because it fails to project accurate emissions reduction and cost potential , and it fails to include

122 

### Towards the Full Cost of Coal: A review of the recent literature assess ing the negative health care externalities
associated with coal

- fired electricity production (Caroline Burkhard Golin 2012).

123 

### Epstein, P. R., Buonocore, J. J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., Stout Iii, B. M., Heinberg, R., ... Glustrom, L. (2011). Full

cost ac counting for the life cycle of coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219 (1), 73

- 98. Per Towards the Full Cost of Coal: A review of the recent literature assessing the negative health care externalities associated
with coal

- fired electricity pr oduction (Caroline Burkhard Golin 2012).

124 

### Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States (U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation 2011), per Solar Electricity: Economic Development and Impact (presentation by Lee J. Peterson, Esq. 2012).

125 

### Solar Electricity: Economic Development and Impact (presentation by Lee J. Peterson, Esq. 2012).

126 

### CAA Section 111(d)(1); Clean Pow er Plan Legal Memo at 97

127 

### Id.

128 

### Id.

129 

### CAA Section 111(d)(1); CAA Section 111(a) (1); Legal Memo 94

130 

### Id.

### 59

distributed PV entirely. Therefore, the state goals as set fort h in EPA’s proposal are inaccurate. Below are the steps the EPA should take to accurately account for solar energy as a part of the BSER.

 The EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmark from the alternative approach and rely on the IPM model resu lts with modifications.

 The EPA should use the Sunshot

- 62.5% cost scenario as the cost input for utility PV in the IPM model and as the cost input for distributed PV from the SolarDS model.

 The EPA should use the Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario d istributed PV solar capacity projections to
hard

- wire distributed PV into the IPM model to include distributed PV.

 The EPA should update the current generation data for solar from EIA data with SEIA’s recommended outlined approach.

 The EPA should update the performance estimates used in the IPM model for solar.

 The EPA should use a 2012 or higher baseline year.

These steps are elaborated upon below in Section 3B.



## 3B. The EPA Should Use the Alternative A pproach with M odifications to Determine the State G oals. SEIA believes that the Alternative Approach, when adjusted to adequately capture the contributions from solar, would most effectively capture the emissions reductions achievable through application of
the BSER t o affected EGUs . The Alternative Approach is more accurate because it does not rely on one policy to determine the solar potential in a state, as the RPS approach does. 131 

### Thus the Alternative

131 

### There are numerous policies that are driving the growth of solar. For utility scale solar, there are several policy drivers at the federal and state level that play a key role in creating the foundation for continued increase in utility scale solar. At the federal level Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) create the predictable tax environment ne cessary to foster investment in utility scale projects. At the state level, RPS policies have historically been the main driver for utility scale solar projects: as of March 2013, there are 29 states plus Washington, DC that have an RPS, while an addition al 8 states have a renewable portfolio goal. As installed costs have dropped, state and local tax policies as well as utility procurement policies are playing an increasingly important role in the growth in utility scale solar projects. However, for distri buted solar, the most important policy driver is the net metering policy. As of July 2013, there are 43 states plus Washington, DC that have adopted a solar net metering policy. This policy, in combination with the federal 30% investment tax credit, along with other state incentive programs such as rebate and loan programs have driven deployment in this sector. A state RPS with either a solar carve

- out or a DG carve

- out can be a driver of deployment; however, as of March 2013 only 16 states and Washington, DC have an RPS policy with this provision



### . See more at: 

### http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf ; http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/net_metering_map.pdf ; and http://www.dsireusa. org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_DG_RPS_map.pdf

### 60

A pproach would set a more realistic expectation of the amount of solar growth feasible that will create a balanced energy portfolio in each state.

The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) engaged with ICF to run the Integrated Planning Model (IPM®), the same model that EPA uses, to reproduce EPA’s RE Market Potential run based on the below solar energy recommendations, using up

- to

- date cost and performance assumptions for renewable energy technologies

. The resulting national target for renewable generation nearly doubles from EPA’s
estimate , growing from 52 4 TWh in 2030 to approximately 973 TWh in 2030

. 132 

### This clearly demonstrates that significantly higher levels of renewable energy are both technically and economically achievable, compared to the levels proposed in either of EPA’s target

- setting approaches. Based on these results, EPA should strengthen the contributions of renewable energy in its target

- setting to accurately reflect the full potential th at these technologies can have in reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the electricity sector.

The following adjustments should be made to the EPA’s proposed rule to accurately include solar energy in the alternative approach . F ailure to make these ad justments would be arbitrary, as state goals would not reflect the emission limitations achievable through solar energy measures in place today.



### 3B1. Exclude the Technical Potential B enchmark from the Alternative Approach and Rely on the IPM Model R esul ts with M odifications

. Within the Alternative A pproach, the current proposed rule first establishes a technical potential benchmark that is used in combination with an IPM projected market potential. SEIA does not support the inclusion of the technical po tential benchmark in setting a state’s target. Instead, SEIA recommends that EPA rely solely on t he IPM model when applying its Alternative A pproach.

As the EPA notes in its proposal, applying NREL’s technical potential for solar in each state to deter mine
the s tate goals has limited value. In fact, SEIA believes that the technical potential is arbitrary because it shows the solar capacity that could be built in a given state without recognizing real

- world limiting factors such as economic growth and g rid constraints. Therefore, the EPA should not rely on NREL’s technical potential for setting state goals. See Appendix A for more information on the technical potential of solar.

The EPA should solely rely on the IPM model for setting the state targets . Unlike the technical potential, the IPM model takes into account the cost of building renewable generation, a s well as grid conditions in

132 

### See the NRDC comments to the EPA on the Clean Power Plan. SEIA supports the NRDC analysis of solar within the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and building block 3. S ee Table 1.3 in the EPA’s Alternative RE Approach T echnical Support Document. Available here: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014

- 06/documents/20140602tsd

- alternative

- re

- approac h.pdf

### 61

each state and a number of other factors. In addition, the IPM model considers the resource potential
that is consid ered by NREL’s technical potential. SEIA believes that with the correct solar data inputs, the IPM model provides a realistic projection of solar energy potential at the state level that can be relied upon for setting state goals.

Further, there is pre cedent to rely solely on the IPM model for setting the renewable t argets in each
state under the Alternative A pproach. The EPA currently uses the IPM model to analyze the impact of air emissions policies on the U.S. electric power sector such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the proposed Carbon
Pollution Standards for New Power Plants. 133 

### Therefore, there is precedent to rely solely on the IPM model for setting the renew able t argets in each state under the Alternative A pproach. The EPA also notes that “for the development of its latest power sector modeling platform, EPA has increased its external engagement with state air quality planning officials, power company represe ntatives, regional transmission organizations, and others who have provided input on the data, assumptions, and structure of EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v.5.1,” 134 

### which shows that the model includes feedback from a variety of stakeholders, and can be used reliably to set the state targets for compliance. 135



### Should, however, the EPA default to use the technical potential benchmark, please view SEIA’s calculation of the solar technical potential benchmark in Appendix A.



### 3B2. Use Sunshot

- 62.5% Scenario Distributed PV Solar Capacity P rojections to Hard

- wire Distributed PV into the IPM M odel. As demonstrated in the comments above, distributed PV meets the necessary requirements to be considered a part of the BSER. Distributed PV can be deployed at a reasonable cost, reduces emissions, is technically feasible, and is also adequately demonstrated. As distributed PV is a unique, customer

sited generation resource, it may be difficult to represent the technology in a wholesale power model

133 

### http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf p. 3

- 3.

134 

### http://www.epa.gov/powers ectormodeling/

135 

### “ IPM is a multi

- regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies while meeting energ y demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. EPA has used IPM for over two decades to better understand power sector behavior under future business

- as

- usual conditions and evaluate the economic and emission impacts of prospective environmental policies. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and governmen t statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM. ” 

### http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf p. 3

- 2.

### 62

such as IPM . Instead, it is more accurate to rely on separate modeling that fully accounts for market dynamics at the customer level. For example, NREL has developed the Solar Deployment System model (solarDS), a modeling complement to ReEDS which projects distribute d PV installations by state based on system prices, retail rates, and consumer economics. 136 

### A further description of the model is provided
here: The Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) model is a geospatially rich, bottom

- up, market

penetration model that s imulates the potential adoption PV on residential and commercial rooftops in the continental United States through 2030. SolarDS was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to examine the market competitiveness of PV based on regional solar resources, capital costs, electricity prices, utility rate structures, and federal and local incentives. SolarDS calculations are run at a high level of disaggregation by calculating PV generation in 216 solar resource regions, shown in Figure ES

- 1, and combining PV output with
state

- based electricity rate distributions from 3000 utilities. Regional PV financial performance is used to simulate PV adoption rates for each customer type and building type. SolarDS then aggregates regional PV adoption to t he state and national level.



### In an analysis of the EPA Clean Power Plan performed by the N RDC 137 

### , NRDC utilized the DOE Sunshot distributed solar capacity projections from their

- 62.5% price scenario for input into the IPM model. To
arrive at these distribu ted PV capacity projections, the DOE ran the

- 62.5% price scenario through the
SolarDS model. The

- 62.5% cost scenario is reasonable to use, as the cost assumptions correspond with the level of prices and projection of prices seen in today’s distributed PV markets. Refer back to Section
2B2 for discussion of reasonable cost. See Appendix C for these solar capacity projections from the
Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario. NRDC also approximated a growth pathway between 2014 installed capacity
and the Sunshot 2030 distri buted PV capacity projections. The Sunshot

- 62.5% distributed PV solar capacity projections were then hard

- wired into IPM to ensure that the effects on the grid and other generation options are captured. Meaning, the capacity projections were forced into t he IPM model to build a certain GW amount of distributed PV in 2020. The IPM model then went through the same set of steps as the model would with other technologies (i.e. cost considerations, regulations, etc.)



### .

The analysis by NRDC notes that using the

- 62.5% cost reduction scenario may be a conservative projection, as an October 2014 notice from the Sunshot program projects that distributed solar prices
are still on track to meet the Sunshot goal (a full

- 75% re duction in price) by 2020, which would result in higher demand for distributed PV systems than in the

- 62.5% projection

. 138 

### Second, NREL’s analysis

136 

### See NREL’s 

### “ The Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) Model: Documentation and Sample Results ”, available
here : 

### http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45832.pdf

137 

### http://www.nrdc.org/

138 

### U.S. DOE Sunshot, “Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections.” October 2014. Copy available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fny

- sun.ny.gov%2F

- %2Fmedia%2FNYSun%2Ffiles%2FMeetings%2F2014

- 11

- 06%2FSunShot

- Solar

-

### 63

assumes no further price declines after 2020, when in fact many analysts expect that prices will continue

to decline. Finally, the NRDC analysis does not assume any carbon price or incentives for renewable energy beyond those already in place in 2012. 139 

### Therefore, an analysis that includes an application of a $30/MWh cost reduction or similar incentive for zero

- ca rbon technologies would lead to even higher
levels of distributed PV deployment to achieve cost

- effective emissions reductions.



### 3B3. U se the Sunshot

- 62.5% Cost Scenario as the Cost Input for Utility PV in the IPM Model and as the Cost Input for D istribu ted PV from the SolarDS M odel.
The strengths of the Alternative Approach lie in its use of technical and economic data to calculate the state renewable energy potential. However, the EPA has relied on outdated and incorrect data from the EIA, which con tains several

- year old cost and performance data and results in levelized costs for wind and solar which are 46% above current averages for each technology. 140 

### EPA’s modeling should use the most reliable and up

- to

- date cost and performance assumptions availa ble, which will provide a more accurate representation of the cost competitiveness of renewables and demonstrate that more renewables can be deployed at reasonable cost. Refer back to Section 2B2 for discussion of reasonable

cost.

Based on data from the la test U.S. Solar Market Insight Report (Q2 2014) , the costs for utility PV are at $1.81/watt, while the costs for residential and commercial PV (which together make up the distributed solar market) are at $ 3.92 /watt and $ 2.39 /watt, respectively. This places solar on track or close to meet the 2030 SunShot goals. Therefore, the Sunshot assumptions can be used as a trendline for 2030 solar costs. The below graph shows the declining solar prices over the past 4 years and the 2030 Sunshot

- 62.5% scenario.

Industry

Update.pdf&ei=W1dqVIzfO9W3yASv1oGIDg&usg=AFQjCNFhnGZs41wmZP0ch3ZWQbBBcb35TA&sig2=YfPjL EA6Hz_ TNtkpn2SNrA&bvm=bv.79142246,d.aWw

139 

### NREL’s analysis assumed that the PTC and ITC expired in 2012 and 2016, respectively.

140 

### NRDC calculation.

### 64

T he

- 62.5% Sunshot cost assumptions to use are: $1.50/watt for utility P V as a n input directly into the
IPM mode l ; $2.25/watt for residential distributed PV and $1.88/watt for commercial distributed PV for use with the

- 62.5% capacity projections as inputs directly for the solarDS model, which is then
hard

- wired into the IPM model.

NRDC compared a variety of sources to determine an installed cost for utility solar PV. The below chart shows the inputs NRDC used in their IPM analysis, and the sources used fo r the cost assumption. Note that the $1.77/watt that NRDC uses for utility PV is rather conservative as an October 2014 Sunshot report “Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections” shows solar meeting the $1.00/watt pr ojections for utility PV in 2030.

### 65

Comparison of Cost and P erformance Characteristics: Updated Costs and Performance vs. AEO2013

Renewable Energy Cost Assumptions Installed Costs ($/kW)

Onshore Wind Solar PV 141



### EIA AEO 2013 142 

### 2213 3098 Updated Costs and Performance 1750 1770 143



### 3B4. Update the Capital Cost A dders for CSP. For CSP cost, the Proposed Rule’s 2016 cost and performance numbers are consistent with a near

- term molten

- salt tower, if the location multipliers are accounted for and the dollars are converted to 2014 dollars. However, the maximum targets for solar thermal provided in the Proposed Rule are too low; in addition, the “short term capital cost adders,” intended to account for maxing out the production capacity of any given tech nology, are too high and their use results in unrealistically high costs (we note as well that the steps on the short term cost adders of 90 MW and 60 MW are unrealistically low). These
should be corrected. The cost adder should be no more than 10% or 20%. There is significant excess capacity for the CSP equipment today, including factories for receivers and mirrors all over the world. Most of the equipment in a CSP plant is conventional power plant equipment or materials (steel and concrete); only a small percent is specialty equipment, for example mirrors, receivers, heat transfer fluids and salt. In addition, the future cost reduction assumptions are too conservative, as costs are predicted to continue to decrease as new CSP plants come on line. If avail ability impacts the EPA analysis, it is important to note that operating CSP plants in the US have availabilities above 95% after the first couple years of operation. Finally, CSP plants can be adapted to the needs of the utility; they can be designed for peaking, intermediate or baseload. EPA’s model only includes the intermediate load plant configuration, but in the future, the baseload and the peaker plant configurations are likely to be as or more relevant. EPA should model all of the three options.

141 

### Cost and performance assumptions for solar are given in terms of kWdc. EIA’s assumptions are converted fr om AC to DC using a 0.8 derate factor.

142 

### Energy Information Agency, “Annual Energy Outlook 2013”, April 2013.

143 

### Range of estimates based on data from the following sources. See Bottom

- up modeling estimates in: U.S. DOE Sunshot, “Photovoltaic System Pricin g Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections.” October 2014;

“ Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “H1 2014 Levelized Cost of Electricity

– PV.” February 2014; Lazard. “Lev elized Cost of Energy

– v. 8.0; Bloomberg New Energy Finance/World Energy Counci l. “World Energy Perspective: Cost of Energy Technologies.” 2013; SEIA/GTM U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2014.

### 66



### 3B 5. Update the C urrent Generation D ata for Solar from EIA Data with the Below Outlined
A pproach. The IPM model base case should accurately depict the solar market today in order to give an accurate forecast for future solar deployment. The EPA can source d ata from a number of publicly available data sources to understand the solar potential from DG solar, utility PV, and CSP. 144 

### The EIA collects data on
distributed PV , utility PV and CSP capacity and generation through 4 separate forms. Those forms are: 145



###  EIA form 860: Annual Electric Generator Report This covers system

- level data for all plants larger than 1 MW ac 

### ; therefore it does not include

most distributed PV capacity deployed . While detailed data from this form is reported only annually, monthly data rele ases with important metrics are available from EIA’s Electric Power Monthly table 6.3. 146



###  EIA form 861: Annual Electric Power Industry Report This form includes data on the number and capacity of solar energy systems deployed under net energy metering. (Note : data for 2012 and 2013 likely does not include plants larger than 2

MW ac 

### but a form update recently approved by OMB means new data will include those systems and capacity.) This form also contains fields related to energy exported to the grid from these systems reported in megawatt

- hours (MWh) but due to different metering infrastructure and different interpretations of the survey questions, this data is not consistent or reliable

.

 EIA form 826: Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions This form includes data on the number and capacity of solar energy systems deployed under net energy metering. This data is updated monthly and, thus, is more current than form 861 data. However, it covers fewer than 300 of the roughly 3,000 utilities in the U.S. and excludes a couple utilities with significant amounts of customer

- sited solar. (Note: data for 2012 and 2013 likely does not include plants larger than 2 MW ac 

### but a form update recently approved by OMB means
new data will include those systems and capacity.) This form also contains fields related to energy exported to the grid from those systems in megawatt

- hours (MWh) but due to different metering infrastructure and different interpretations of the survey questions, this data is n ot consistent or reliable.

 EIA form 923: Power Plant Operations Report This form gathers data on generation from a sample of power plants larger than 1 MW ac 

### . Since this form does not cover all power plants, EIA uses this data to estimate generation from po wer plants not surveyed. Given the variation in solar production from location to location and with

144 

### There is very limited data on SHC. To assess the growing SHC market, SEIA encourages Congress to instruct the EIA to collect SHC data again.

145 

### F or more detail on EIA forms, see http://www.eia.gov/survey/

146 

### http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/

### 67

different plant configurations that are not readily captured by EIA, estimating total solar generation based on data from this form is not a reliable refere nce source

.

The four EIA forms outlined above contain limited information about current solar capacity deployed. While the EPA relied on data from 2012 in the proposed rule, SEIA strongly encourages the EPA to use the latest available data before setting f inal targets. Given the rapid deployment of solar energy in recent years, the amount of existing solar capacity is now much higher than at the end of 2012. Further,
the EPA failed to account for distributed PV capacity reported in forms 826 and 861

.

Given the shortcomings regarding the timing and limitations of EIA forms utilized, SEIA submits that a more comprehensive estimation approach would present a more accurate picture of actual solar generation . SEIA therefore recommends the following method for es timating the current generation from solar energy:

SEIA suggests the EPA take the latest available data on solar PV capacity (both distributed and utility) from EIA forms 860, 861 and 826 and multiply this capacity by the estimated generation per unit of capacity by state as shown in the table below, which is current through the end of September 2014. 147



### Capacity (MWac) 148 

### Estimated Annual Generation (MWh) 149



### Customer

- Sited DG Utility Total Customer

- Sited DG Utility Total
State Residential Non

Residential Residential Non

Residential

AK 0.30 0.18 0.48 254 186 440

AL 0.25 0.21 0.46 347 346 694

AR 1.52 1.78 3.30 2,102 3,015 5,117

AZ 288.14 276.83 1,213.70 1,778.67 507,741 596,571 2,951,610 4,055,922

CA 1,424.82 1,131.99 4,470.30 7,027.11 2,351,226 2,274,410 10,210,829 14,836,464

CO 128.92 128.92 103.40 361.24 206,010 252,056 230,382 688,448

CT 38.36 51.50 5.00 94.86 47,742 78,493 8,780 135,015

DC 5.34 3.85 9.19 7,062 6,228 13,290

147 

### For each state, we estimated system performance (MWhac/MWdc/year) based on taking the simple average of performance of all the weather stations with typical meteorological year 3 (TMY3) data in that state. This method also likely underestimates the amount of solar currently being generated, since the we ighted average yield per MWdc will likely be higher than the simple average of TMY3 sites. The reason that this would likely underestimate energy production is because developers are more likely to site plants in higher resource parts of a given state. Fo r example, there is more solar in southern California than in the far northwest corner of California but weather stations from northwest California are included in the simple average.

148 

### Source: EIA forms 826, 861 and 860. Includes both photovoltaic (PV) a nd concentrating solar power (CSP) capacity.

149 

### Estimate based on average modeled system performance in each state using TMY3 weather data.

### 68

DE 15.72 16.59 27.10 59.41 20,695 26,613 50,048 97,356

FL 41.30 43.80 64.20 149.30 60,862 78,541 130,856 270,259

GA 7.19 37.82 10.50 55.51 10,082 65,339 20,771 96,191

HI 218.21 56.61 24.20 299.01 347,317 108,410 53,500 509,227

IA 13.85 9.31 23.16 17,272 14,393 31,665

ID 2.04 1.65 3.69 2,982 2,939 5,921

IL 4.39 4.82 29.00 38.21 5,593 7,523 51,708 64,824

IN 2.51 1.71 64.70 68.93 3,140 2,613 113,583 119,335

KS 1.07 1.16 2.23 1,596 2,106 3,702

KY 1.01 1.21 2.21 1,293 1,880 3,173

LA 73.81 3.44 77.25 103,510 5,837 109,347

MA 103.32 373.06 126.40 602.78 124,427 552,098 215,336 891,861

MD 49.76 72.95 45.20 167.91 65,965 118,216 81,447 265,629

ME 10.68 3.86 14.53 12,578 5,577 18,155

MI 13.57 9.12 22.69 16,181 13,318 29,499

MN 8.72 10.60 19.32 10,508 15,750 26,257

MO 39.01 56.02 7.70 102.73 53,221 93,429 14,797 161,447

MS 0.05 0.00 0.05 72 0 72

MT 3.38 1.74 5.12 4,514 2,849 7,363

NC 20.84 34.44 279.90 335.18 28,962 60,105 547,483 636,549

ND 0.41 0.05 0.46 524 78 602

NE 0.40 0.48 0.88 571 833 1,404

NH 7.03 4.16 11.19 8,389 6,079 14,468

NJ 196.21 776.23 218.60 1,191.04 256,218 1,243,794 392,955 1,892,967

NM 27.89 41.13 185.60 254.62 49,423 89,077 460,202 598,703

NV 17.96 55.58 494.30 567.83 30,231 114,692 1,157,783 1,302,706

NY 128.85 100.41 31.50 260.76 154,994 147,879 53,018 355,891

OH 7.80 59.40 28.10 95.30 9,411 87,669 47,171 144,252

OK 0.98 0.41 1.38 1,473 750 2,223

OR 32.74 39.53 10.70 82.97 43,187 63,701 19,828 126,716

PA 61.01 134.39 29.50 224.90 74,735 202,061 50,244 327,040

PR 2.00 2.17 4.17 3,149 4,107 7,256

RI 1.45 5.26 4.90 11.62 1,808 8,042 8,637 18,486

SC 3.10 0.45 2.50 6.04 4,449 791 5,074 10,313

SD 0.03 0.22 0.25 33 364 397

TN 0.06 0.40 12.10 12.55 77 661 21,739 22,477

TX 52.07 46.35 119.00 217.42 77,883 84,306 248,151 410,340

UT 12.04 15.11 1.30 28.46 19,566 30,056 2,961 52,582

### 69

VA 7.63 7.04 14.67 10,278 11,614 21,892

VT 90.07 6.65 10.00 106.72 105,364 9,507 16,453 131,324

WA 30.30 9.14 0.50 39.94 36,121 13,312 817 50,250

WI 7.91 6.02 13.92 9,708 9,080 18,788

WV 1.88 0.53 2.41 2,251 777 3,028

WY 1.02 1.02 2.04 1,560 1,909 3,469
Total 3,208.91 3,647.28 7,619.90 14,476.09 4,914,655 6,519,980 17,166,160 28,600,794



### The data in the annual generation column at the far right should be used as a direct input into the IPM
model.



### 3B6. Update the Performance E stimates use d in the IPM Model for S olar.
The EPA used EIA data that does not reflect current performance estimates within the solar market. The solar performance estimates are based on the simple average of performance at each TMY3 weather
station in each state as modeled using PVWatts in NREL’s System Advisor Model (SAM) . For detailed
charts on t he solar performance estimates, see Appendix D . SEIA recommends using the maximum capacity factor in each state, as utility scale developers will target the highest resource regions. It should be noted that through innovation such as oversized inverters, i ndividual projects have reported capacity factors of up to 30%, but SEIA does not currently have publicly available data that captures this trend at
a national level.



### 3B7 . SEIA Does Not Take a P osition on the NODA Regionalized Approach for RE Target
Sett ing The EPA is requesting comment on grouping states into certain regions, summing the RE target generation identified under the alternative approach, and then reallocating the summed generation proportionally to each state within that region by a chosen criterion, such as each state’s share of total electricity sales within that region in 2012. 150 

### SEIA does not take a position on this regionalized approach for setting the renewables target for states under building block 3 . However, SEIA notes that a region alized approach would better align RE targets with the proposal to allow the use of certain out

- of

state renewables for compliance, as the EPA notes as well

. This would allow for more state flexibility in compliance plans. Furthermore, the electric grid is not confined to one state in the contiguous U.S., and grid regions have become geographically integrated. SEIA does not take a position on the grouping of states or criteria for reapportioning the state RE targets within given regions.

150 

### 79 FR 64551

### 70



### 3B8. SEIA supports the changing the goal setting equation for calculating building block 3 as mentioned in the NODA to reflect the reduced utilization of affected EGUs from di splacement by renewable energy. As proposed, the Clean Power Plan evaluates the impact of building block 3 on each state’s carbon intensity by adding MWhs of expected renewable and nuclear generation only to the denominator of

t he state’s 2012 adjusted ra te. The calculation of the impact of increased generation under building block three does not reflect the displacement of emissions and generation from affected EGUs that
would result from the new renewable generation

. T he final Clean Power Plan should tre at generation from renewable energy and existing NGCC in the same way. In calculating the impacts of building block 3 on the state emission rate goals, the EPA should be consistent with the approach in building block 2

.
SEIA supports the second proposal outlined within the NODA that assumes renewables and energy efficiency would replace dirtier fossil generation first. This would correctly remove from each state’s carbon intensity numerator emission reductions to express the drawdown in fossil fuel resour ces when renewables and energy efficiency increase. That is, affected EGU MWhs should be removed from the denominator and the equivalent number of MWhs should be added back based on low

- and zero

- carbon generation from building block 3 , and emissions asso ciated with affected EGUs should be removed from
each state ’s carbon emissions numerator.

This second proposal for setting the state goals under building block 3 as outlined in the NODA is consistent with how renewable energy would be used under a best sy stem of emissions reductions, as displacing the highest

- emitting resources first would be the most cost

- effective option . To expand upon this, if carbon cost were accounted for in generation dispatch decisions, as it may be in some regions as part of imple mentation of BB2, many gas units would be dispatched lower on the supply curve than many coal units, putting coal units onto the margin where they will be displaced by renewable energy

.



### 3B9. SEIA Supports a 2012 or Higher Baseline Year The EPA is request ing comment on whether the EPA should use a different single data year or the average of a combination of years to calculate the state fossil fuel emission rates used in state goal
calculations. 151 

### The EPA currently uses 2012 as the baseline year for calcula ting the state goals. SEIA does not support using a baseline year below 2012, and strongly suggests the use of a baseline year of 2013 or higher in setting the solar portion of th e renewable state target under building b lock 3. The solar industry has grown dramatically in recent years and the amount of solar capacity online in the U.S.

151 

### 79 FR 64548

### 71

has doubled since the end of 2012. 152 

### Therefore, the use of a lower baseline year would not accurately represent the current or future potential contributions from solar to a l ow carbon energy supply.

Should the EPA use an average of multiple years of generation to set the baseline, it will be critical for the EPA to adjust the calculation to reflect the generating fleet as it exists today (i.e. end of September 2014). To do th is, the EPA can look at the generation mix relative to the existing online generation capacity of each technology in each averaged year. Put another way, the EPA could look at the average capacity factor of each technology in each year and then apply that to gene ration fleet as it exists today

. To clarify further, the EPA could estimate baseline solar generation by either multiplying the historical average capacity factor for solar in each state by the current existing capacity in each state, or by
modellin g the expected performance of current existing capacity in each state. Modelling for wind and solar is a sensible approach as wind and solar are at the top of merit order dispatch, and thus their modeled performance is very likely to reflect their average lifetime performance.

Correctly assessing the baseline and solar energy’s contribution to the baseline for the Clean Power Plan is critical, as the generation fleet has changed in meaningful ways since 2012 and especially since 2010. Using a simple averag e of absolute generation levels of each technology would grossly underrepresent solar generation as it exists today because there is a significantly larger amount of solar capacity online today.



## 3C. As an Example, Other Approaches to Setting the Renewables Portion to the State Targets Show Double the Amount of R enewable E nergy Potential using the Correct Data for Renewable E nergy. As an example, o ther approaches to setting the renewables portion to the state targets, such as the
Union of Concerne d Scientists’ (UCS) demonstrated renewables growth approach, show double the
amount of renewable energy potential using the correct data for renewable energy. 153 

### The UCS demonstrated growth approach would improve on the EPA’s proposed approach by incorporati ng the following core components:

 Setting a national renewable energy growth rate benchmark based on demonstrated growth in the states from 2009 to 2013

 Assuming full compliance with current state RES policies, as set by law, that require certain percentag es of electricity to come from renewable sources

152 

### SEIA/GTM U.S. Solar Market Insight Report.

153 

### For a detailed explanation of the UCS dem onstrated growth approach, please see: http://www.ucsusa.org/our

work/global

- warming/reduce

- emissions/role

- of

- renewable

- energy

- in

- epa

- clean

- power

- plan#.VHUxBckueYE

### 72

 Accounting for actual and expected renewable energy growth between 2013 and 2017.

The UCS state

- level renewable energy targets begin in 2017, the proposed start date for state compliance plans, and ramp up through 2030. To determine each state’s 2017 generation levels, the UCS uses actual generation data from 2013 (the EPA’s approach uses 2012 data) and adds projected generation from wind and utility

- scale solar projects known to be under construction throug h 2016.

This demonstrated renewables growth approach results in a total of 923 TWh of total renewables to be deployed nationwide, nearly double the EPA’s estimate of 52 4 TWh in 2030

. 154 

### To arrive at this level of generation, the UCS utilized the ReEDS model and SolarDS. Inputs were provided into SolarDS first, with the output then inserted into the ReEDS model; this allows for distributed PV to be included. The below table shows the updated solar data and cost assumptions that were used in the UCS demonstrat ed growth approach:

Comparison of Overnight Capital Costs for Solar Electric Generation Technologies (2013$/kW AC 

### )

UCS Demonstrated Growth Approach EIA AEO 2014

Technology 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040

Solar PV

- Utility 5,215 1,925 1,604 1,283 1,283 3,943 3,334 2,963 2,625

Solar PV

- Res. Used NREL’s Sunshot scenarios, 62.5% by 2020 and 75% by 2040 7,636 3,850 2,823 2,823

Solar PV

- Comm. Used NREL’s Sunshot scenarios, 62.5% by 2020 and 75% by 2040 6,545 2,951 2,567 2,567



## 3D. Should the EPA Default to the Current Approach (RPS approach) in Setting State
T argets, Several Key Changes Must be Made as Noted B elow. SEIA believes that the Alternative Approach, when adjusted, captures the emissions reductions achievable through application of the BSER to affected EGUs most effectively. The Alternative Approach is more accurate because it is state specific rather than regional, and does not rely on one policy to determine the solar potential in a state. While SEIA is not in favor of the current approach (RPS approach), should the EPA default to this, there are two key changes that must be made: use the highest
RPS in a region absent a state specific determination that a lower RPS would be more appropriate , and use 2030 RPS targets.

154 

### S ee Table 1.3 in the EPA’s Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document. Available here: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014

- 06/documents/20140602tsd

- alternative

- re

- approach.pdf

### 73

First, the EPA should use the highest RPS in a region to set the state targets, not the average RPS , unless a state specific determination shows that a lower RPS would be more appropriate . The current approach groups states into 6 different regions and takes the average of the 2020 RPS goals for those states in that region and multiples this by the total 2012 generation for the region. The EP A chose this RPS approach for two principal reasons: “First, in establishing the requirements, states have already had the opportunity to assess those requirements against a range of policy objectives including both feasibility and costs. ... Second, renewab le resource development potential varies by region, and the RPS requirements developed by the states necessarily reflect consideration of the states’ own respective regional contexts.” 155 

### The highest RPS goal in the region still fits within the principal rea sons the EPA used, as the state will have weighed the feasibility and cost of the RPS policy against other policy objectives, yet still arrived at the aggressive RPS goal.

Furthermore, there are many instances where solar deployment has exceeded RPS deplo yment schedules, indicating that the RPS goal could have been more aggressive. For example, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, solar has already exceeded the RPS goals. 156 

### These aggressive goals are an indication that higher

- levels of renewable energy deployment are viewed as possible in each respective region. Also, a recent report called “The State Clean Energy Cookbook” from former Senator Jeff Bingaman notes that only five of twenty

- nine states have fallen below 90 percent of expected annual progress toward RPS targets. 157



### Secondly, the EPA should use 2030 RPS targets, not 2020 targets in setting the state goals. As the compliance period for the Clean Power Plan rule extends out to 2030, not 2020, selecting the RPS goals
for 2020 severely limits the renewable energy potential for an entire decade. For example, the RPS goal for HI is set for 40% by 2030, compared to just 25% by 2020. 158 

### Minnesota also has a 10% solar target by 2030, in addition to other RPS goals. 159 

### Today, 2020 R PS goals are less than 6 years away, and by the time the rule is made final, less than 5 years away. Utilities are already planning for these RPS requirements in 2020 as part of their integrated resource planning processes. Selecting a 2030 RPS goal
sends a clear message on the potential for a state to include renewables as part of a balanced state energy portfolio by 2030.

155 

### Federal Register, Vol. 79 No. 117 Wednesday, June 18, 2014, p. 34866.

156 

### http://uspref.org/wp

- content/uploads/2012/06/Ramping

- up

- Renewables

- Leveraging

- State

- RPS

- Programs

amid

- Uncertain

- Federal

- Support

- US

- PREF

- White

- Paper1.pdf

157 

### http://media.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs

- and

- centers/steyer

- taylor/State

- Policy

- Report

- low

res.pdf

158 

### http://energy.hawaii.gov/renewable

- energy
159 

### http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_ Code=MN14R&re=1&ee=0

### 74



# 4. C ompliance Comments

4A. E xisting Measures and Early Action

4A1. SEIA Supports the EPA Proposal to Allow Existing Measures to Count Towards Compliance After the Date of the Proposed Rule, But Requests that EPA Provide Clear er Guidance in the Final Rule 160 

### SEIA interprets the EPA’s proposal regarding existing measures to mean that state measures which exist
after the date of th is proposal, June 18, 2014, can be used to drive emissions reductions during the compliance period (2020

- 2030). However, because building block 3 was factored into determination of the state goals, existing renewable energy goals and actions that were impl emented prior to 2018 are allowed to count of the compliance period. Therefore, MWh from renewable energy capacity installed pursuant to an existing measure or program any time prior to 2020 can be counted towards compliance during the compliance period (2 020

- 2030) if the existing measure is included in a state’s implementation plan. For example, if 1000 MW of solar capacity was installed in 2013 pursuant to an RPS and the state includes the RPS in its compliance plan, then emissions displaced by MWh from the 1000 MW of solar capacity during the compliance period (2020

- 2030) can count towards the state’s 111(d) compliance requirements in that period.

SEIA supports the EPA’s proposal consistent with this understanding . SEIA agrees that existing measures should be allowed to count during the compliance period, and can help states meet interim compliance goals set forth in the original proposal. SEIA believes that this is consistent with EPA’s interpretation of the BSER as including measures taken by state s to reduce emissions across the electric system. Further, this is consistent with the cooperative model promoted by Section 111(d) and the Clean Air Act, which

160 

### The EPA is proposing that, for an existing state requirement, program, or measure, a state may apply toward its required emission performance level the emission reductions that existing state programs and measures achieve during a p lan performance period as a result of actions taken after the date of this proposal. An ‘‘existing measure’’ refers to a state or utility requirement, program, or measure that is currently ‘‘on the books.’’ (34918) For the purposes of this discussion, this may include a legal requirement that includes current and future obligations or current programs and measures that are in place and are anticipated to be continued or expanded in the future in accordance with established plans. Existing measures may have past, current, and future impacts on EGU CO2 emissions. (34918 ft nt. 292) We are also proposing that this proposed limitation would not apply to existing renewable energy requirements, programs and measures because existing renewable energy generation pri or to the date of proposal of the emission guidelines was factored into the state

- specific CO2 goals as part of building block 3. (34918 ft. nt. 293)

### 75

provides states with significant flexibility in determining the best method for reducing emiss ions. Further, allowing states to count existing measures towards compliance recognizes the investment already made by states towards emission reduction, and will allow states to carry forward programs that are in motion without distorting current markets

.
However, during the comment period there has been significant confusion regarding exactly which existing renewable energy measures can be counted towards compliance and when credit will be given. This confusion is already threatening potential emissio n reductions by slowing project development because states and EGUs are uncertain which actions will count towards compliance, and when these
actions can count. Therefore, while SEIA supports the proposal put forth by EPA as interpreted above, SEIA request s that in the final rule the EPA more clearly state which actions can count towards compliance and when such actions count.



### 4A2. EPA Proposal to Allow Pre

- 2020 Emissions Reductions to Count Towards Overall State Goals 161 

### SEIA proposes that the EPA allow re ductions from existing measures prior to 2020 to count towards compliance in 2020. However, to avoid significantly weakening the overall state goals and to prevent unintended consequences that may arise from allowing early action to count during the compl iance period, SEIA recommends that the EPA allow emission reductions to be banked according to limiting
criteria.

SEIA recommends that states should be allowed to get limited credit for (“bank”) MWh generated prior
to 2020 . Specifically, states should b e allowed to bank MWh generated from the date their SIP is

161 

### The EPA also solicits comment on a second broad option. This option would recognize emission reduction s that existing state requirements, programs and measures achieved starting from a specified date prior to the initial plan performance period, as well as emission reductions achieved during a plan performance period. The specified date could be, for examp le: The date of promulgation of the emission guidelines; the date of proposal of the emission guidelines; the end date of the base period for the EPA’s BSER

- based goals analysis (e.g., the beginning of 2013 for blocks 1

– 3 and the beginning of 2017 for bloc k 4, end

- use energy efficiency); the end of 2005; or another date... The agency is seeking comment on whether some variation of this approach could be justified as consistent with the EPA’s proposed goal

- setting approach, as well as the general concept of th e BSER and its application in establishing state goals. In particular, we are seeking comment on whether the emission effects of actions that are taken after proposal or promulgation of the emission guidelines or the approval of a state plan, but which occ ur prior to the beginning of the initial state plan performance period, could be applied toward meeting the required level of emission performance in a state plan. (34919) The EPA is also seeking comment on the 2020

- 2029 Glide Path and early action in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA). SEIA’s proposal below addresses the EPA’s comments on crediting certain pre

- 2020 reductions that could be used to reduce the overall amount of reductions in the 2020

- 2029 period.

### 76

submitted, and that those credits be eligible for compliance purposes for 36 months from the dat e of the start of the compliance period.

This approach is consistent with EPA’s goal of compliance f lexibility and EPA’s rationale that states and EPA will need a few years to create and approve compliance plans prior to 2020. Further, limited banking after SIP approval ensures that only measures included in approved SIPs are used for compliance and inc entivizes states to submit SIPs for approval in a timely manner. Limiting banking to
2

- 3 years is aligned with best practices of most RPSs and regional markets which allow banking for 2

- 3 years without significantly reducing overall state goals. However, some banking incentivizes early action
and market momentum while reducing large fluctuations in the supply curve, which in turn will reduce compliance costs and increase the viability of building block 3 as a compliance option for states.

While SEIA supp orts limited banking, SEIA believes that unlimited banking or extended banking of
emission reductions b eyond a 3 year timeframe should not be permitted for states. Unlimited or extended banking damages the ability of the Clean Power Plan to “lock

- in” long

- term emissions
reductions and systematic long

- term change by allowing states to increase actual emissions in compliance years . As stated above

, some flexibility in this regard is warranted but extended or unlimited banking would undermine the effectivenes s of the Plan. Additionally , extended or unlimited banking

create s distortions in the market by allowing states and EGUs to choose not to create new renewables until late in the compliance period or only create new renewables early on. B oth create signifi cant uncertainty for renewable energy markets, which may increase compliance costs or lead to states failing to comply. Further, SEIA is concerned that unlimited banking may lead to gaming and enforcement challenges if the EPA uncovers validation issues w ith MWhs generated many years prior

.
Therefore, SEIA supports limited banking as outlined above.



## 4B. Interstate Emissions Effects

4B1. The EPA Should Credit States that Invest in Renewable Energy 162 

### SEIA supports the approach put forth by the EPA regarding crediting states under building block 3. In order to aid state compliance with 111(d) obligations, it would be most efficient and equitable for the

162 

### The EPA is proposing that, for renewa ble energy measures, consistent with existing state RPS policies, a state could take into account all of the CO2emission reductions from renewable energy measures implemented by the state, whether they occur in the state or in other states. This proposed a pproach for RE acknowledges the existence of renewable energy certificates (REC) that allow for interstate trading of RE attributes and the fact that a given state’s RPS requirements often allow for the use of qualifying RE located in another state to be u sed to comply with that state’s RPS. The EPA is also seeking comment on how to avoid double counting emission reductions using this proposed approach. (34921)

### 77

EPA to model its approach after the best pra ctices of existing state RPSs. Relying upon existing best practices and infrastructure will aid states in efficiently meeting their obligations, while making double

counting structurally impossible, thereby maintaining the integrity of the emissions red uct ions which
will be achieved. SEIA recommends that the following rules undergird 111(d) SIPs.

A. RECs delivered over tracking systems are the primary tool for tracking the compliance benefits of renewable electricity.
B. Only the party retiring the REC is located is permitted to claim compliance credit.
C. RECs owned by non

- compliance (“voluntary”) buyers are not counted toward state 111(d) compliance obligations.
Observance of these rules will help to assure the continuation of the robust renewable energy market, uphold the integrity and emissions objectives of the rule, promote efficien t market structures, and avoid
double

- counting.

While SEIA recommends the default rules set forth above, SEIA also recognizes that states should be
allowed to enter into b ilateral and multilateral agreements, whether REC based or based on emissions budgeting. While states should have be allowed to enter into agreements, they should be required to
show that the emission reductions are real, verifiable, and are not being cla imed by another entity or

state

A. RECs delivered over tracking systems are the primary tool for tracking the compliance

benefits of renewable electricity.

The transfer and retirement of RECs in tracking systems

- a system in which only the REC owner is
entit led to compliance credit

- ensures that the REC can only be used by one party. In order to ensure that a given MWh is only used once, the EPA must make clear that, as a general rule, the generation of renewable electricity does not qualify for 111(d) compl iance credit, but that the consumption of renewable electricity, as demonstrated by REC retirement, does. As noted above, this should not preclude states from entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements if they choose to do, so long as they can sho w that emission reductions are real, verifiable, and are not being claimed by another entity

or state.

B. Only the party retiring the REC is located is permitted to claim compliance credit.

If RECs are not used as the compliance instrument for renewable energ y, it would be possible for double counting to occur. Double counting would occur in a state where the SIP is based on the generation of renewable energy, but the REC associated with that generation is sold into a state where the SIP is
based the consumpti on of renewable energy. In such a situation, two states would be seeking to claim

### 7 8

the emissions and compli ance benefits of the same MWh. To ensure that this scenario does not arise, and additionally, to promote a robust market for the purchase of renewabl e energy, the EPA should be clear that only the party which retires the REC is able to claim 111(d) compliance credit.

Rewarding REC purchases, as opposed to generation has the additional benefit of reducing compliance costs by allowing states to benefit f rom the comparative advantages of interstate trade. States where renewable generation is relatively expensive, or resources are scarce, are able to purchase RECs from neighboring states where generation is more economical, or resources are readily available, thereby encouraging renewable energy development and compliance at the lowest total cost.

As noted above, this should not preclude states from entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements if they choose to do, so long as they can show that emission reductions are real, verifiable, and are not
bei ng cla imed by another entity or state.

C. RECs owned by non

- compliance entity (“voluntary”) buyers are not counted toward state 111(d) compliance obligations.

An additional situation where double counting could arise, is the situation where a voluntary buyer of RECs uses the REC for its own benefit, but then a compliance entity seeks to claim the benefit of the

same MWh of renewable electricity. The renewable energy industry in the United States has been boosted by a vibrant voluntary market for RECs. Accordin g to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in 2012, total retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets exceeded 48 million megawatt

- hours (MWh) and represented approximately 1.3% of total U.S. electricity sales. 163



### Voluntary buy ers purchase renewable energy because they support the generation of renewable energy above the minimum standards requi red by government regulations. Just like a buyer in an RPS market, when a voluntary customer purchases a REC, it has purchased the exclus ive rights to claim that REC for
itself. If federal and/or state government agencies were to create a system where a state were to be permitted to take title to those claiming rights away from the REC consumer, then the voluntary REC
owner would have had i ts property rights taken without compensation, potentially in violation of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In order to account for voluntary REC purchases in rate based SIPs, the EPA should mandate that the party claiming 111(d) co mpliance benefits must own and retire the associated REC.

In order to account for voluntary REC purchases in mass based SIPs, the EPA should follow California’s practices in it s AB 32 cap and trade program. California has enacted a voluntary renewable ener gy

163 

### Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market (2012 Data); J. Heeter and T. Nicholas, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

### 79

program which retires emission allowances equivalent to the avoided emissions associated with voluntary REC purchases. 164 

### The retirement of these allowances ensures that the owner of the REC is
able claim the emission reduction benefits from their purchas e. In the absence of this allowance retirement, parties other than the REC owner would be able to claim the benefits of the REC’s lack of emissions and avoided emissions, thereby negating the zero emission and emissions reductions benefi ts owned by the REC purchaser. This result would discourage future REC purchases, and potentially lead to a Fifth Amendment government taking.

SEIA recommends that in order to ensure an active, growing, efficient renewable energy market with integrity, that the EPA adopt th e above referenced industry best practices to undergird 111(d) compliance programs.



## 4C. F ederal Enforceability: The EPA Should Implement Enforceable Emissions Targets but Allow Programmatic Flexibility 165 

### SEIA does not take a position on any of the approac hes put forth by EPA regarding the structure of state plans. 166 

### What is important is that the EPA require states to commit to binding and verifiable emission reductions, but allow states significant programmatic flexibility in achieving those reductions.

As recognized by the EPA, Section 111(d) provides EPA and states significant flexibility in determining how to structure state plans to most effectively achieve emissions reductions. SEIA urges the EPA to take advantage of this flexibility and allow state s to maintain autonomy over their emission reduction programs to the extent possible. States have shown that they can achieve significant reductions through a combination of programs and measures developed and managed at the state level. SEIA is

concerne d that taking an overly prescriptive approach to enforcing state programs will render the programs less effective by exposing states to litigation risk and disrupting the administration of the

164 

### See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/chapter7.pdf

. 165 

### The EPA is proposing that all measures relied on to achieve the emission performance level be included in the state plan, and that inclusion in the state plan renders those measures federally enforceable. In light of current state programs, and of stakeho lder expressions of concerns over the above

- noted issues, including legal enforcement considerations, with respect to those programs, the EPA is proposing to authorize states either to submit plans that hold the affected EGUs fully and solely responsible f or achieving the emission performance level, or to submit plans that rely in part on measures imposed on entities other than affected EGUs to achieve at least part of that level, as well as on measures imposed on affected EGUs to achieve the balance of tha t level. The EPA requests comment on this proposed approach, as opposed to the approach under which state plans simply would be required to hold the affected EGUs fully and solely responsible for achieving the emission performance level. (34901)

166 

### The EPA suggests a number of approaches to state plans, including a portfolio approach, state commitment approach, and alternatives.

### 80

programs by state agencies. Therefore, SEIA suggests the EPA r equire states to commit to binding emission reductions, but allow states significant programmatic flexibility in achieving their reduction goals.



## 4D. E valuation, Measurement and Verification: The EPA Should Provide Guidance for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification of Solar 167 

### Existing protocols already exist for measuring, verifying, and crediting the renewable electricity generated from solar systems and the associated carbon emissions reduc tions. The two basic main steps

are: (i) to track the outp ut

– i.e. meter the solar energy generated (MWh)

- and (ii) to determine the
emissions rate of electricity that is being displaced (lbs/MWh). The EPA should provide guidance to states on which protocols and methods will be acceptable to the EPA for complian ce with the rule. SEIA has provided a discussion of this issue in Appendix B

.



## 4E. P eriodic Review of the Best System of Emissions Reductions: The EPA Should Review the BSER Every 8 Years 168


### Under §111(b)(1)(B), the EPA reviews and, if appropriate, revises its standards of performance for new sources. Section 111(d) does not require regular review and revision of the rule. However, because the section is silent on the issue, EPA has discretion to institute a periodic review of its standard for existing sources. Because §111(d) is intended to capture reasonably anticipated regulatory and technological developments, it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme for EPA not to revisit and update the BSER and state goals periodically. In addition, periodic review would be consistent with the “no backsliding” policy set forth in the Clean Power Plan to ensure that emissions reductions are maintained during and after the compliance period. 169 

### To ens ure that state goals continue to be a reflection of the BSER, SEIA recommends that EPA treat the 2030 goals as a default and review the final goals by no later
than 2024.

167 

### As discussed in section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking comment on whether the agency should provide guidance on enforceability co nsiderations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than affected EGUs (and if so, which types of entities). Also, as discussed in section VIII.F.4, the EPA intends to develop guidance for evaluation, monitoring, and verification (EM&V) of renewable energy and demand

- side energy efficiency programs and measures incorporated in state plans.

168 

### The EPA notes that CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for the EPA, at least every eight years, to review and, if appropriate, revise federal standards o f performance for new sources. This requirement provides for regular updating of performance standards as technical advances provide technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The agency requests comment on the implications of this concept, if any, for CAA section 111(d). (34908)

169 

### Clean Power Plan at 34,917

### 81



## 4F. P ost

- 2030 Emissions Reduction Requirements: The EPA Should Require State
Emiss ion Levels to be Maintained After the Compliance Period has Ended 170 

### Congress intended emission reductions under §111(d) to be permanent. In fact, other emission limits set under §111(d) are permanent requirements. Therefore, the EPA should require emissi ons reductions achieved by existing sources under §111(d) to be permanent reductions that remain in place
after 2030.



## 4G. Concerns with Natural Gas 171 

### SEIA urges the EPA to consider the impact of its rule on the build out of natural gas infrastructure. S EIA is concerned that, depending on how the rule is implemented, affected EGUs may be incentivized to build significant natural gas infrastructure that will be in place for the next 20

- 30 years once constructed. This would undermine EPA’s long term emissi on reduction goals and potentially discourage states from relying on renewable energy resources as a compliance option. Further, significant build out of natural gas infrastructure over the next few years could negatively impact ratepayers in the long run if such infrastructure becomes stranded assets as carbon emissions become more expensive in the future.

There are two areas of particular concern in the proposed rule.

1. Emissions Changes from the Substitution of New Natural Gas Generation

SEIA is co ncerned that under the rule, states may be incentivized to construct new natural gas plants that are not subject to 111(d) to avoid 111(d) requirements on affected EGUs. Therefore, emissions that result from substituting generation by affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required emission performance level for affected EGUs. This means that if new natural gas plants are used for compliance purposes, they should be factored into the establishment of state targets to maintain symmetry
between the res ources considered in setting the target and resources allowed for compliance. Treating

170 

### Specifically, the state plan must demonstrate that the projected emission performance of affected EGUs in the state will be equivalent to or better than the applicable interim goal during the 2020

– 2029 period, and equivalent to or better than the applicable final goal during the year 2030. The state plan must identify requirements that continue to apply after 2030 and are likely to maintain continued emission performance by affected EGUs that
meets the final goal; (34904)

171 

### The agency requests comment on how emissions changes under a rate

- based plan resulting from substitution of generation by new NGCC for generation by affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required emission performance level f or affected EGUs. Specifically, considering the legal structure of CAA section 111(d), should the calculation consider only the emission reductions at affected EGUs, or should the calculation also consider the new emissions added by the new NGCC unit, whic h is not an affected unit under section 111(d)? Should the emissions from a new NGCC included as an enforceable measure in a mass

- based state plan (e.g., in a plan using a portfolio approach) also be considered?

### 82

new gas generation as if it has zero carbon emissions would result in less overall carbon emission reductions because the gas generation would be subject to the cap und er 111(d). This would allow a state to treat new gas facilities as if they were zero

- emitting resources, creating a disincentive to rely on renewables or existing natural gas that is subject to 111(d) regulations

.

2. EPA’s “Glide Path” Proposal 172



### SEIA is also concerned with the “glide path” proposed by the EPA and the incentive it might create to build significant natural gas infrastructure in the early years of the compliance period. SEIA recognizes the need for some compliance flexibility early on. Th erefore, SEIA proposes limited banking (see Section
4A2 ). However, SEIA urges to the EPA to carefully consider whether the proposed “glide path” will create an early incentive to construct significant natural gas infrastructure that will make it more
diffi cult and expensive for states to reduce emissions through the deployment of renewables and other measures in the long term. Natural gas has a history of price fluctuations, and a low cost in the U.S. in 2014 doesn’t guarantee it will remain inexpensive in 2020 or 2030, particularly given the very high price for natural gas elsewhere in the world and increasing demand for the product. A portfolio of energy resources can act as a hedge against price increases in natural gas; particularly as the price of renew able energy continues to decrease. CSP plants, for example, use conventional steam turbines, and when combined with thermal energy storage have the same operational characteristics of fossil fueled power plants, without their emissions.

Further, SEIA urg es the EPA to recognize the speed of solar deployment, along with the modularity of solar, which makes it a great choice for meeting incremental generation needs and can assist states in quickly achieving compliance with EPA regulations under §111(d). The development and construction timeline for a large, centralized conventional fossil fuel power plant is typically a multi

- year process (and longer for nuclear energy). By comparison, the time from conception to operation for renewable energy projects can be much faster. While very large solar and wind plants are still subject to some of the same

172 

### The EPA is requesting comment from the NOD A on the phasing in of Building Block 2, leading to a more gradual glide path. The EPA is specifically asking for comment on phasing in dispatch changes under Building Block 2. 172 

### SEIA does not support the gradual phasing in of dispatch for natural gas plant s under Building Block 2. States should be encouraged to begin compliance measures as soon as the compliance period begins in 2020, regardless of the make

- up of the state compliance plans. Allowing the gradual phase in of Building Block 2 could delay actio n by some states on the compliance plan and thus further delay emission reductions. Furthermore, the 2020

- 2029 glide path is intended to show that a state is making progress towards the end target in 2030. Incorporating renewable energy and energy efficien cy measures into a state compliance plan can demonstrate that a state is making progress towards the 2030 goal in the earlier years of the compliance period as these measures are quick to install, while the other compliance measures

- such as the switching to natural gas

- can demonstrate compliance in the later years of the compliance period.

### 83

siting and permitting

- related requirements as large fossil plants, medium and small solar facilities can be built quickly, especially with the right policies in plac e. In places with streamlined permitting and interconnection procedures, it is possible for a three

- person crew to install up to three residential PV systems in a day. For larger commercial flat

- roof PV systems, a six

- person crew can install 100 kW of PV
i n a day.



## 4H. R ecognize Each Solar Technology as a Compliance Option and Specifically
M ention these Technologies May be Eligible within State Compliance P lans. The EPA needs to clearly state in the final rule which renewable energy projects and technologies will be eligible as compliance measures. SEIA encourages the EPA to clearly state that energy generated from
distributed PV, CSP, utility PV, and SHC p rojects be specifically named as eligible tec hnologies.



# 5. Conclusion
The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the United States. For all of the above

reasons, we respectfully request that the EPA adopt an approach to regulating carbon emission s under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that accurately reflects the potential for solar to reduce carbon
emissions from affected EGUs as discussed in these comments.

Thank you for your consideration of our input, and we look forward to working with the EPA. If you have

any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully,

Rhone Resch

President & CEO

Solar Energy Industries Association 505 9 th 

### Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 682

- 0556

### 84



# APPENDIX A

– SEIA Calculation of the Technical Potential Benchmark
Should the EPA choose to include the technical benchmark potential, the EPA must include updated
solar data to refl ect the current solar industry. To establish the technical potential benchmark, the EPA compares each state’s renewable energy technical potential against its existing renewable energy generation. The technical potential is measured by NREL in the report “U.S. Renewable Energy Technical
Potential: a GIS

- based analysis” and existing renewable generation as reported by the EI A for 2012. The EPA notes that for solar, the EPA uses NREL’s technical potential estimates for urban utility

- scale PV, rural utility

- scale PV, and CSP. Should the EPA include the technical potential benchmark, the EPA must include the technical potential estimates for distributed solar. This technical potential for rooftop solar
can be found here: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html

.

SEIA has severe concerns with the existing renewable gener ation data used for solar as reported by the EIA in 2012. As stated in comments above, SEIA recommends the EPA take the latest available data on solar capacity (both DG and utility) from EIA forms 860, 861 and 826 and multiply it by the estimated generatio n per unit of capacity by state as shown in the table on page 67 in Section 3B5 that is current through April 2014. For CSP facilities in operation, the EPA should use production estimates provided by NREL since generation from these plants is more project

- specific.

The comparison of the renewable technical potential to the existing r enewable net generation yields the proportion of achieved renewable generation from technical potential, which the EPA represents as the renewable energy development rate. Th e EPA next takes the average renewable energy development rate for the top third of states to use as a benchmark renewable energy development rate for each technology. The benchmark rate is applied to each state’s technical potential to calculate the
bench mark generation for each technology type.

Using the SEIA recommended approach for accurate solar data in each state and the NREL technical potential figures gives a new benchmark average solar development rate of 4.74% when looking at the top 16 states as the approach calls for. The current EPA proposal has a benchmark average solar development rate of 0.009%.

For illustrative purposes, the following chart shows what each state’s technical potential for solar would be with this approach (this excludes current CSP generation from each state in the calculation):

### 85

Benchmark Generation for Solar for each State (G Wh) State

95.98011027 Alaska
55.88955507 Alabama
200.1702 Arizona
143423.3466 Arkansas
470827.755 California
30391.932 Colorado
5003.9232 Connecticut
4289.5104 District of Columbia
649.9962 Delaware
10729.701 Florida
3125.2242 Georgia
22151.3472 Hawaii
2080.5282 Iowa
1168.8366 Idaho
311.3706 Illinois
2804.4684 Indiana
193.392 Kansas
187.23 Kentucky
4772.4216 Louisiana
697.3962 Massachusetts
11269.113 Maryland
27486.4068 Maine
838.3638 Michigan
1157.3658 Minnesota
68.8248 Missouri
4635.8148 Mississippi
393.7518 Montana
35422.4466 North Carolina
11610.2508 North Dakota
17453.865 Nebraska
117.6468 New Hampshire
645.2562 New Jersey
81386.3214 New Mexico
74.8446 Nevada
24650.4174 New York

### 86 6235.1856 Ohio
153.576 Oklahoma
5400.045 Oregon
14165.3004 Pennsylvania
423.0924 Rhode Island
517.6554 South Carolina
294.4014 South Dakota
66.9762 Tennessee
1131.912 Texas
11806.2498 Utah
1009.62 Virginia
1987.245 Vermont
6401.133 Washington
880.3602 Wisconsin
1718.9136 West Virginia
200.1228 Wyoming 972,762.8977 TOTAL

The EPA realizes the limits with the technical potential, and therefore pairs the benchmark development rates with an IPM model to take into account the cost of building the renewable generation. 173 

### The final target renewable generation for each state is achieved by taking the lesser of these two approaches: the technology benchmark rate multiplied by the in

- state technical potential, or the IPM

projected market potential for that specific technology.

However, as mentioned in the comments above, SEIA does not support including the technical potential benchmark in the alternative approach. To clarify how the technical potential is not a realistic number to use in setting a benchmark , Texas has enough renewable potential to meet the 111(d) requirements of every state combined several times over. In 2012 (according to EIA form 861 data), Texas consumed 365,000 GWh of electricity. The table below summarizes the renewable energy potentia l relative to annual consumption in Texas. 174 

### That is, Texas could get 22% of its electricity from rooftop PV, 81% from

173 

### Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document, “While the benchmark Re development rate offers a useful metric to quantify the proportion of RE generation cons istent with what has been demonstrably achieved in practice by the top third of states, EPA recognizes that a metric based solely on technical potential has limitations.”
P.2

174 

### Data from the NREL report “ U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potential: a GIS

- bas ed analysis” and EIA 2012 data.

### 87

urban utility PV, more than 10,000% of its electricity from rural utility PV, etc. A fraction of any one of these would be more than enoug h to comply with the requirements for Texas under the Clean Power
Plan.

km2 Acres GW GWh Renewable
Potential as a fraction of Total

Texas Consumption

Urban Utility PV 3,214 794,089 154 294,684 81%

Rural Utility

- scale PV 425,230 105,076,479 20,411 38,993,582 10680%

Rooftop PV 60 78,717 22%

CSP 235,398 58,168,046 7,743 22,786,750 6241%

Onshore Wind 380,306 93,975,509 1,902 5,552,400 1521%

Offshore Wind 54,289 13,415,007 271 1,101,063 302%

Total (Excluding CSP due to overlap with Rural PV) 863,038 213,261,084 22,799 46,020,445 12605%



### Furthermore, the SunShot study also notes that the land area that is potentially suitable for solar deployment is enormous and “thus land, per se, is not a constraint on meeting the SunShot scenario
level of d eployment.” 175 

### The study goes on to note:

However, it is important to make careful selection of sites in order to provide access to available or planned transmission, and to minimize conflicts with environmental, cultural, and aesthetic interests. The land area required to supply all end

- use electricity in the United States using PV is only about 0.6% of the country’s total land area. Similarly, the technical potential for CSP is enormous: about 17,500 TWh of annual CSP electricity generation, which is more than four times the 2010 U.S. annual demand, could be sited in seven southwestern states on land that has been pre

- screened to avoid prominent land

- use issues and to meet technical requirements such as insolation and slope. About 370,000

– 1,100,000 hectares (ha) (900,000

– 2,700,000 acres) are required for utility

- scale solar installations in 2030 under the SunShot scenario, and about 860,000

– 2,500,000 ha (2,100,000

– 6,300,000 acres) are required in 2050. The required land area is equivalent to about 0.05%

– 0.14 % of the

175 

### http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf

### 88 contiguous U.S. land area in 2030 and about 0.11%

– 0.33% in 2050. Solar development in the SunShot scenario is greatest in the South and Southwest. Often the highest

- quality solar resource areas are dry environments that are typically not well suit ed for cropland or offer little value for forestry and rangeland. 176



# APPENDIX B

- Evaluation, Measurement & Verification
Existing protocols already exist for measuring, verifying, and crediting the renewable electricity generated from solar systems and the associated carbon emissions reduc tions. The two basic main steps are to, (i) track the output

– i.e. meter the solar energy generated (MWh)

- and (ii) to determine the
emissions rate of electricity that is being displaced (lbs/MWh). It may also be necessary to adjust for transmission and distribution (T&D) losses if the solar energy is being generated at or near the customer, but is displacing central station generation.

Tracking the Output

Utility PV and CSP For utility PV and C SP systems, EM&V is not difficult. All utility scale solar projects and CSP projects are already metered and monitored. The metered electricity is also usually assigned a renewable energy credit (REC), whether for compliance with RPS or for use in voluntar y green power programs. One REC is typically equal to 1 MWh of generation. Rigorous accounting methods and transaction platforms for RECs already exist throughout the U.S.; for example, in almost every state that has an RPS policy, there
is a method to tra ck the RECs. More generally, these RECs are often part of broader generation attribute tracking systems, such as the GATS system used in the PJM control area and the GIS system used in the New England ISO.

Distributed PV
The distributed PV sector is com prised of the residential and commercial markets. Although not all distributed PV systems are metered and monitored, many are. For example, every system that is
contracted under third

- party ownership is metered and monitored, typically remotely (electronic ally) and often in near real time, such that time of day production can be recorded. Of existing solar capacity, nearly 70% of the residential market and 50% of the commercial market is contracted under third party ownership. Moreover, in states where distributed PV is used to meet state RPS requirements, metering and reporting is required for tracking of SRECs, regardless of the ownership of the system. The type of metering may be similar to that for third

- party owned systems or may be less granular, for example using an analog meter to manually record monthly production. For the portion of the distributed PV market that is not metered, estimates of performance can be made by using any number of publicly and

176 

### http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf

### 89

commercially avail able models including the NREL PVWatts model Sandia National Labs flat plate model, PVSyst, SolarAnywhere® FleetView®, and Homer.

Determining the Emissions Rate of Electricity that is Being Displaced

Once the generation is known, either through direct m etering or from the sale of the RECs, the next step is to determine the fossil fuel energy that is being displaced by the solar energy and the associated
avoided carbon emissions. T he EPA has already spelled out guidance to states for incorporating more

re newable energy into state implementation plans for compliance purposes with pollutants under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, and has included an Appendix within the guidance that details some of the methods available for quantifying the carbon emissions reduced by renewable energy. 177 

### The se methods include energy models, historic generation and emissions data, capacity factor emission rates, and system average emission rates.

One example of a model that uses historic dispatch data is the Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT), developed by the EPA. The AVERT model uses historic dispatch data to statistically determine the marginal EGUs on an hourly basis . The AVERT model is free to use and comes with a simple user interface designed to meet the needs of state air quality planners and other interested stakeholders, and can easily be used to e valuate county

- level emissions displaced at EGUs by renewable energy policies and programs , and to analyze the emission benefits of different renewable energy prog rams in multiple states within an AVERT region.

Another example of an energy model is the ForeSEE model. A Georgia Tech startup recently developed
the ForeSEE model that examines the CO 2 

### emissions avoided from solar, including DG PV, as well as the
NO x 

### and SO x 

### emissions too. While this model is currently only available for Atlanta and the State of Georgia, as the model was designed to look at the impact of Georgia Power’s distributed solar policies for the city of Atlanta, the startup (Cox and Golin Con sulting) is expanding ForeSEE’s application throughout the country to inform debates about the value of solar. 178

177 

### More information on the Roadmap can be found here: http://epa.gov/airquality/eere/ Appendix I on “Methods for Quantifying Energy Efficiency and Renewa ble Energy Emission Reductions” is available here: http://epa.gov/airquality/eere/pdfs/appendixI.pdf

178 

### See “Sustaining the City: Understanding the Role of Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission s in Sustainable Development in Major Metropolitan Areas” by William Matthew Cox, June 2014. Available here: https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/52316

### 90

Additional Solar Factors to Note The methods that can be used to determine the emissions rate of electricity that is being displaced from
solar a ll have advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the approach that is chosen, the calculated
carbon emission reductions from solar will likely differ. For example, solar energy typically displaces
fossil fuels at or near the peak demand hours, wh en the sun is shining. The EGUs on the margin at peak demand hours are almost always natural gas units; therefore, in a more complex approach to calculating
the carbon emission reductions

- such as a dispatch model

- the carbon emission reductions from solar

may be less than with an averaging approach, because averaging will tend to include higher

- emitting baseload EGUs such as coal plants.

Solar heating and cooling (SHC) is another type of solar energy that is generally not accounted for in energy models. S olar heating and cooling systems should be a part of any state compliance plan for 111(d), as SHC systems displace the need for the combustion of fossil fuels for heating and cooling
needs.

Finally, the use of solar storage affect s the calculation of carb on emission reductions. With thermal

energy storage, solar energy is able to displace EGUs operating at the margin during non

- peak hours, and even potentially cut into base load EGU supply. With the development of all types of storage, solar
can substantia lly displace natural gas and coal EGUs, and play an even more significant role in reducing
carbon emissions. Any methods used to quantify the carbon emission reductions from solar must be able to account for solar storage. This pose s a problem for those mo dels and methods that use resource availability (i.e. sunlight) as the assumed proxy for solar energy generation , but should not be difficult for dispatch models and other approaches that rely on plant operating characteristics.

The EM& V of solar output (MWh) is straight

- forward and will increasingly include granular time of day output for large and small systems , which provides high confidence in the ability to track solar generation.



# APPENDIX C

- DOE Sunshot Capacity Projections with

- 62.5% Cost Reduction Scenario
The below DOE Sunshot capacity projections were used as inputs into the IPM model. The IPM model
was told

– or, “hard

- wired”

- to build the below distributed PV capacity in each state in 2030 under the

- 62.5% cost reduction s cenario.

### 91 Rooftop PV

2030 2050

SunShot 75% cost reduction (GW) SunShot

62.5%
cost reduction (GW) REF

case (GW) SunShot

75% cost reduction (GW) SunShot

62.5%
cost reduction (GW) REF

case (GW)

Alabama 0.6 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.8 0.2

Arizona 7.4 4.8 2.2 10.6 7.6 4.6

Arkansas 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.1

California 29.5 19.8 11.4 37.8 24.4 16.1

Colorado 4.3 2.6 1.5 5.8 3.8 2.0

Connecticut 2.2 1.1 0.2 3.5 2.2 0.9

Delaware 0.6 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.3

Florida 10.7 4.7 0.6 29.0 15.2 4.8

Georgia 2.4 1.0 0.1 6.5 2.6 0.8

Idaho 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0

Illinois 1.8 0.7 0.2 5.1 1.7 0.4

Indiana 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.9 0.8 0.4

Iowa 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.6 0.9 0.7

Kansas 0.9 0.7 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.7

Kentucky 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.1

Louisiana 1.2 0.8 0.6 2.3 1.2 0.8

Maine 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.2

Maryland 1.6 0.8 0.2 3.7 2.1 0.9

Massachusetts 1.9 0.9 0.1 3.1 1.7 0.5

### 92

Michigan 1.4 0.7 0.1 4.9 1.7 0.8

Minnesota 1.3 0.6 0.0 3.6 1.3 0.6

Mississippi 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0

Missouri 2.0 1.0 0.2 5.0 2.4 1.2

Montana 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.1

Nebraska 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.4

Nevada 3.4 2.1 0.7 5.0 3.6 2.2
New Hampshire 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0

New Jersey 2.6 1.2 0.2 4.1 2.5 0.8

New Mexico 1.1 0.7 0.4 1.8 1.3 0.7

New York 6.5 3.9 1.2 11.5 8.0 4.6

North Carolina 2.4 1.2 0.4 6.7 2.5 1.2

North Dakota 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0

Ohio 1.0 0.3 0.0 4.3 1.2 0.3

Oklahoma 1.1 0.7 0.4 2.7 1.3 0.8

Oregon 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.2

Pennsylvania 3.2 1.6 0.4 6.9 3.2 1.2

Rhode Island 0.7 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.2

South Carolina 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.2

South Dakota 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2

Tennessee 1.1 0.3 0.0 4.6 1.2 0.2

Texas 15.2 7.7 1.5 33.9 20.0 8.8

Utah 0.8 0.4 0.0 2.6 1.4 0.5

### 93

Vermont 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0

Virginia 1.8 0.8 0.1 5.3 2.2 0.9

Washington 1.9 1.6 0.6 2.3 1.8 0.7

West Virginia 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1

Wisconsin 1.2 0.5 0.1 3.3 1.2 0.4

Wyoming 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1



# APPENDIX D

- TMY3 Solar PV System Performance
The following shows the solar performance estimates based on the simple average of performance at
each TMY3 weather station in each state as modeled using PVWatts in NREL’s System Advisor Model (SAM) . These performance estimates were then used as an input in NRDC’s IPM analysis.


# Average of Capacity
Factors in
Each State

Average of DC to AC Capacity Factor Column

Labels
0

- Axis 1

- Axis
Row Labels 15 Lat Lat
AL 15.51% 15.86% 19.76%
AR 15.40% 15.82% 20.12%
AZ 19.62% 20.47% 27.10%
CA 18.40% 18.96% 24.61%
CO 17.83% 18.80% 24.73%
CT 13.86% 14.43% 17.93%
DE 14.68% 15.31% 19.12%

### 94

FL 16.47% 16.75% 20.90%
GA 15.70% 16.12% 20.08%
IA 13.98% 14.61% 18.61%
ID 16.27% 17.09% 22.70%
IL 14.23% 14.75% 18.61%
IN 13.92% 14.28% 17.85%
KS 16.52% 17.41% 22.41%
KY 14.31% 14.67% 18.41%
LA 15.57% 15.84% 19.78%
MA 13.43% 14.00% 17.35%
MD 14.76% 15.39% 19.26%
ME 13.18% 13.87% 17.63%
MI 13.34% 13.72% 17.39%
MN 13.51% 14.29% 18.36%
MO 15.12% 15.66% 19.95%
MS 15.73% 16.05% 20.10%
MT 14.90% 16.06% 21.01%
NC 15.52% 16.07% 20.10%
ND 14.18% 15.26% 19.84%
NE 15.84% 16.83% 21.66%
NH 13.30% 13.86% 17.44%
NJ 14.60% 15.26% 19.05%
NM 19.77% 20.62% 27.20%
NV 18.71% 19.66% 26.19%
NY 13.43% 13.90% 17.41%
OH 13.45% 13.74% 17.04%
OK 16.81% 17.46% 22.56%
OR 14.73% 15.24% 19.83%
PA 13.73% 14.15% 17.56%
RI 13.90% 14.58% 18.00%
SC 16.07% 16.61% 20.79%
SD 14.83% 15.75% 20.35%
TN 15.25% 15.66% 19.65%
TX 16.66% 17.00% 21.67%
UT 18.07% 18.96% 25.13%
VA 15.06% 15.66% 19.64%
VT 13.05% 13.48% 17.08%
WA 13.29% 13.77% 17.83%

### 95

WI 13.75% 14.36% 18.30%
WV 13.35% 13.68% 16.87%
WY 17.08% 18.29% 24.13%
Grand Total 15.47% 16.07% 20.53%



# Maximum Capacity Factor in Each State

Max of DC to AC Capacity Factor Column

Labels
0

- Axis 1

- Axis
Row Labels 15 Lat Lat
AL 16.82% 17.22% 21.57%
AR 16.66% 17.32% 22.33%
AZ 20.55% 21.47% 28.91%
CA 21.41% 22.20% 29.62%
CO 20.43% 21.65% 28.91%
CT 14.71% 15.41% 19.23%
DE 14.99% 15.57% 19.58%
FL 17.92% 18.24% 22.93%
GA 16.58% 17.08% 21.41%
IA 15.83% 16.75% 21.42%
ID 17.79% 18.81% 25.02%
IL 15.49% 16.19% 20.59%
IN 15.32% 15.77% 20.02%
KS 18.44% 19.42% 25.42%
KY 15.46% 15.97% 20.26%
LA 16.47% 16.83% 21.31%
MA 14.71% 15.54% 19.29%
MD 15.29% 15.94% 20.16%
ME 14.98% 15.94% 20.15%

### 96

MI 14.12% 14.61% 18.60%
MN 14.93% 16.02% 20.53%
MO 16.38% 17.12% 21.84%
MS 16.26% 16.72% 21.06%
MT 15.90% 17.34% 23.03%
NC 16.91% 17.59% 22.50%
ND 15.20% 16.49% 21.50%
NE 17.56% 18.89% 24.64%
NH 14.38% 14.98% 19.13%
NJ 16.06% 16.78% 21.25%
NM 21.00% 21.86% 28.95%
NV 20.00% 20.98% 28.29%
NY 15.09% 15.89% 19.87%
OH 14.45% 14.86% 18.59%
OK 18.47% 19.41% 25.44%
OR 17.48% 18.29% 24.36%
PA 14.94% 15.65% 19.56%
RI 14.31% 14.97% 18.52%
SC 16.74% 17.31% 21.84%
SD 16.63% 17.98% 23.45%
TN 16.09% 16.69% 21.14%
TX 20.50% 21.03% 27.96%
UT 19.60% 20.52% 27.40%
VA 17.05% 17.88% 22.87%
VT 13.82% 14.31% 18.20%
WA 15.33% 16.06% 21.37%
WI 14.74% 15.49% 19.61%
WV 14.51% 14.88% 18.49%
WY 18.56% 19.91% 26.53%
Grand Total 21.41% 22.20% 29.62%

Count of Weather Stations in Each State

### 97

Count of DC to AC Capacity Factor Column

Labels
0

- Axis 1

- Axis
Row Labels 15 Lat Lat
AL 14 14 14
AR 18 18 18
AZ 18 18 18
CA 73 73 73
CO 25 25 25
CT 7 7 7
DE 2 2 2
FL 42 42 42
GA 19 19 19
IA 39 39 39
ID 13 13 13
IL 19 19 19
IN 10 10 10
KS 23 23 23
KY 12 12 12
LA 17 17 17
MA 15 15 15
MD 5 5 5
ME 15 15 15
MI 31 31 31
MN 54 54 54
MO 17 17 17
MS 13 13 13
MT 16 16 16
NC 22 22 22
ND 10 10 10
NE 26 26 26
NH 8 8 8
NJ 9 9 9
NM 17 17 17
NV 10 10 10
NY 24 24 24
OH 13 13 13

### 98

OK 15 15 15
OR 19 19 19
PA 21 21 21
RI 3 3 3
SC 10 10 10
SD 11 11 11
TN 8 8 8
TX 61 61 61
UT 13 13 13
VA 31 31 31
VT 4 4 4
WA 29 29 29
WI 20 20 20
WV 11 11 11
WY 13 13 13
Grand Total 925 925 925



# APPENDIX E

- Solar Procurement 179 

### The following is a list of utility solar procurement pro grams and activities. SEIA has provided URLs to many of the solar procurement programs and activities within the tables below. These tables are followed by a nother table showing solar on the grid within the service territory of each utility, as well as a table that shows current CSP projects. Finally, details on specific utility solar procurement programs
are also included.

179 

### All solar procurement data taken fro m Solar Electric Power Association database 12.1.14

### 99

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Dover Electric Dept. DE Site

Leas e (Ground) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A http://www.r
enewableener gyworld.com/ rea/news/arti cle/2009/07/d

over

delaware

plans

- 10

- mw

solar

- project

Palo Alto
Utilities CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 20000

MWh 60000

MWh 9

- Oct

13 https://www.c

ityofpaloalto.o rg/civicax/file bank/docume nts/39981

Public
Service
Electric & Gas Co. Long
Island NY RFP Solar Only PV 2 MW 2 MW 9

- O ct

13 https://www.

psegliny.com/ page.cfm/Abo utUs/PressRel eases/040214

- solar

Ohio Edison (FirstEnergy) OH RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 6600
MWh 14

- Oct

13 http://www.bi

zjournals.com /prnewswire/ press_release s/2014/10/22 /CL44642

The Illuminating Co (First Energy) OH RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 6600
MWh 14

- Oct

13 http://www.bi

zjournals.com /prnewswire/ press_release

### 100

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

s/2014/10/22 /CL44642

Toledo
Edison (FirstEnergy) OH RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 6600
MWh 14

- Oct

13 http://www.bi

zjournals.com /prnewswire/ press_release s/2014/10/22 /CL44642

Tennessee Valley Authority TN RFP Solar Only PV 500 kW N/A 7

- Nov

13 http://www.tv

a.com/environ ment/epa_mit igation/pdf/So
licitation%20f
or%20Solar%2 0Aggregated%
20Value%20E
ducation%20I nitiative.pdf

Southern Maryland
Elec Co

- op MD RFP Solar Only PV 2 MW 10 MW 1

- Jul

13 http://www.s

meco.com/ne ws/11

- 09

- 23/SMECO_Pl ans_to_Build_ Solar_Project.

aspx

Pacific
Power (PacifiCorp) OR RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 10 MW 31

- May

- 13 https://www.

pacificpower. net/env/bsre/ cpf/eligibility.
html

### 101

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) UT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 10 MW 31

- May

- 13 https://www.r

ockymountain power.net/en v/bsre/bscpf/ eligibility.html

CPS Energy TX RFP Solar Only PV 400 MW 400
MW 7

- Dec

11 http://www.o

cisolarpower.c om/news.htm
l

United Illuminating CT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A 26

- Jul

11 http://www.g

oogle.com/url ?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&sou
rce=web&cd= 12&cad=rja&u
act=8&ved=0C CgQFjABOAo & url=http%3A%
2F%2Fnuwnot
es1.nu.com%2 Fapps%2Fwhp wr%2Frfp.nsf
%2F0%2FEE27
CC26B410A19
B85256F5400
81E92B%2F%2
4FILE%2FCCE O_RFP_Term_ Sheet_2011.d oc&ei=Y7p0V MHqPMmnyA Sg6oLICg&usg =AFQjCNGqk4

### 102

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

QL2WUWv7zb uPtuHbg32sS m7g

Conn. Light
& Power (Northeast Utilities) CT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A 26

- Jul

11 http://www.g

oogle.com/url ?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&sou
rce=web&cd= 12&cad=rja&u
act=8&ved=0C CgQFjABOAo& url=http%3A%
2F%2Fnuwnot
es1.nu.com%2 Fapps%2Fwhp wr%2Frfp.nsf
%2F0%2FEE27
CC26B410A19
B85256F5400
81E92B%2F%2
4FILE%2FCCE O_RFP_Term_ Sheet_2011.d oc&ei=Y7p0V MHqPMmnyA Sg6oLICg&usg =AFQjCNGqk4 QL2WUWv7zb uPtuHbg32sS m7g

### 103

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Arkansas Valley
Electric Co

op AR RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 2 MW N/A 14

- Oct

10 could not find

anything

Detroit Edison (DTE Energy) MI RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 1 MW N/A 15

- Feb

11 https://dteen

ergy.mediaroo m.com/index. php?s=26817
&item=72245

Detroit Edison (DTE Energy) MI RFP Solar Only PV 3 MW 3 MW 26

- Apr

11 https://dteen

ergy.mediaroo m.com/index. php?s=26817
&item=72271

El Paso
Electric TX RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 200

MW 19

-

Aug

- 11 http://greene

nergymaine.c om/job/el

paso

- electric

seeks

proposals

- its

peaking

capacity

needs

Georgia
Power (Southern Co) GA RFP Solar Only PV 1 kW 100 kW 11

- Jul

11 http://www.g

eorestore.com /ProjectDetail. aspx?pid=570

Holy Cross Energy CO RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CPV N/A 10 MW 1

- Feb

11 http://biomas

sconference.c
rowdvine.com /attachments/

### 104

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

0002/7215/G
olis

- Diana.pdf

Lincoln
Electric System NE RFP Solar Only PV 5 kW 5 kW 21

- Jul

11 http://apps3.e

ere.energy.go v/greenpower /financial/arc
hives.shtml

Sierra Pacific
Power Co NV RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 1000

MW N/A 16

-

Dec

- 10 http://www.s

olarindustrym ag.com/e107_ plugins/conte nt/content.ph p?content.663
4

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 1 MW N/A 15

- Jun

11

P enn Power (First Energy) PA RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 10

- Feb

11

PPL Electric
Utilities PA RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP,
CPV 24000

MWh 24000

MWh 27

- Jun

11 http://www.p

ennfuture.org /UserFiles/File /Energy/Solar _Policy_PUC_ 20100916.pdf

PPL Electric
Utilities PA RFP Solar Only PV 27000

MWh 27000

MWh 11

- Apr

11 http://teampa

.com/2011/06 /ppl

- to

-

### 105

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

purchase

solar

- credits/

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) UT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CPV N/A N/A 1

- Jul

11

Roseville
Electric CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A 26

- Jul

11

San
Francisco
PUC CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A 6

- Oct

10

Southern
California
Edison CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 1 MW N/A 27

- Jun

11

Arizona
Public
Service AZ RFP Solar Only PV 17 MW 17 MW 30

- Nov

- 11

Arizona
Public
Service AZ RFP Solar Only PV 14 MW 14 MW 30

- Apr

12

Salt River Project AZ RFP Solar Only PV N/A 50 MW 15

- Sep

11

CPS Energy TX RFP Solar Only PV N/A 50 MW 31

- May

- 11

Southern
California
Edison CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A 11

- Jul

11

### 106

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Pedernales
Electric Co

op TX RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 30 MW 15

- Jul

11

Avista
Utilities WA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 35 MW 2

- Mar

11

South Mississippi El
Pwr Assn MS RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A 1

- Jul

11

Conn. Light
& Power (Northeast Utilities) CT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV 100 kW 2000
kW 12

- Jun

12

PNM

- New
Mexico NM RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 150
MWh 10

- Feb

12

Duke Energy
Indiana IN RFP All
Renewa
ble PV N/A 400
MW 30

-

Mar

- 12

Silicon Valley
Power CA RFP Solar Only PV N/A 15 MW 9

- Jun

12

Holy Cross Energy CO RFP Solar Only PV 100 kW 300 kW 4

- Jun

12

Denton
Munici pal
Electric TX RFP All
Renewa
ble PV 10 MW 20 MW 21

- Feb

12

### 107

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Pacific
Power (PacifiCorp) OR RFP Solar Only PV 500 kW 5 MW 11

- Jun

13 http://www.p

acificorp.com/ sup/rfps/rsola
r2013.html

PNM

- New
Mexico NM RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 100

MWh 375000

MWh 31

- Jan

13 http://www.s

olarindustrym ag.com/e 107_ plugins/conte nt/content.ph p?content.116
36

Southern
California
Edison CA RFP Solar Only PV 500 kW 10 kW 2

- Dec

13 http://www.p

v

magazine.com /news/details /beitrag/south

ern

- california

edison

launches

solicitation

for

- mid

- sized

behind

- the

meter

- solar

pv_10001676 5/#axzz3K6lZn

8nI

Pennsylvania
Electric Company PA RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 24

- Oct

13

Met

- Ed (FirstEnergy) PA RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 24

- Oct

13

### 108

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Pennsylvania
Power Co PA RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 24

- Oct

13

Austin Energy TX RFP Solar Only PV N/A 50 MW 3

- Dec

13

Southern
California
Edison CA RFP All
Source PV N/A N/A 16

- Dec

- 13

Public
Service
Electric & Gas Co. Long
Island NY RFP All
Source PV N/A N/A 31

- Mar

- 14

People's
Electric Cooperative OK RFP Solar Only PV 2 MW 15 MW 25

- Nov

- 13 http://www.p

eoplesrfp.com /15MW/defau lt.aspx

PNM

- New
Mexico NM RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 150000

MWh 10

- Jan

14

National Grid MA RFP Solar Only PV N/A 20 MW 1

- May

14

Duke Energy
Carolinas NC RFP Solar Only PV 5 MW 300
MW 28

-

Mar

- 14 http://www.p

v

magazine.com /news/details /beitrag/duke

energy

- issues

300

- mw

- solar

energy

-

### 109

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

request

- in

nort h

carolina_1000 14258/#axzz3
K6lZn8nI

Georgia
Power (Southern Co) GA RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A 495

MW 30

- Apr

14

Southern
California P

A CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A 31

- Dec

- 14

Lyndonville Village of VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Orleans Village of VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Village of
Swanton VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Washington Electric Coop
Inc VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Vermont Electric Cooperative,
Inc. VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

### 110

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Jacksonville Village of VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Central
Vermont PSC VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Barton Village, Inc VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Green
Mountain
Power VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Village of
Ludlow VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Village of
Morrisville VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Hyde Park Village of VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Village of Enosburg
Falls VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Town of
Readsboro VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

### 111

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Town of
Stowe VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Village of
Northfield VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

City of Burlington

Electric VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Town of
Hardwick VT RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 kW 100 kW 9

- May

14

Xcel Energy

- MN MN RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH 5 MW 100

MW 20

- Jun

14

Northern
States Power
Co MN RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH 5 MW 100

MW 20

- Jun

14

Black Hills Energy CO RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A 60 MW 31

- Jul

14

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA RFP All
Source PV N/A N/A 31

- Dec

- 13

Xcel Energy

- MN MN RFP Solar Only PV N/A 150
MW 1

- Jun

14

### 112

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Austin Energy TX RFP Solar Only PV N/A 4 MW 29

- Apr

14

Arizona
Public
Service AZ RFP Solar Only PV N/A 20 MW 28

- Jul

14 http://www.p

v

magazine.com /news/details /beitrag/arizo

na

- public

service

unveils

- plans

to

- install

- 20

-

mw

- of

- solar

pv

- on

customer

rooftops_100 015891/#axzz
3K6lZn8nI

United Illuminating CT RFP All
Source PV N/A 9 MW 14

- Jul

14 http://www.s

olarindustrym ag.com/e107_ plugins/conte nt/content.ph p?content.142
25

Constellation NewEnergy,
Inc MD RFP Solar Only PV N/A 1 MW 18

- Jul

14 http://www.c

hestertown.co m/gov/pdf/RF Psolar.pdf

Southern
California
Edison CA RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, N/A N/A 31

- Jan

14

### 113

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

CPV,
SWH

Xcel Energy

- CO CO RFP Solar Only PV N/A 100
MW 20

- Jun

14 http://www.r

enewableener gyworld.com/ rea/blog/post /2014/04/nort
hern

- states

power

company

issues

- 100

-

mw

- solar

- rfp

NV Energy NV RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A 20 MW 21

- Mar

- 14

Gainesville Regional
Utilities FL RFP Solar Only PV N/A 1 MW 31

- Oct

10

Maui Electric
Co HI RFP All
Renewa
ble PV 200 MW N/A N/A

Southern Maryland
Elec Co

- op MD RFP Solar Only PV N/A 10 MW N/A http://www.s meco.coop/ne ws/14

- 04

- 16/SMECO_A nnounces_Sec ond_Solar_Pr oject.aspx

### 114

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

La Plata
Electric Assn CO RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 29

- Jun

12

Palo Alto
Utilities CA RFP Solar Only PV 1 MW 3 MW 12

- Aug

- 14

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA RFP Solar Only PV N/A 21 MW 10

- Jun

14

El Paso
Electric TX RFP All
Source PV N/A N/A 28

- Apr

13

Plumas

Sierra REC CA RFP Solar Only PV N/A 2 MW 31

- Jul

14

PEPCO MD RFP Solar Only PV 3 MW N/A 5

- Sep

14 http://www.m

ontgomerycou ntymd.gov/D

OT

Parking/Resou rces/Files/MC
DOTSolarRFEP _FINAL.pdf

Baltimore
Gas &
Electric (Exelon) MD RFP Solar Only PV 3 MW N/A 5

- Sep

14

Allegheny Energy Supply Co
LLC MD RFP Solar Only PV 3 MW N/A 5

- Sep

14

### 115

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Washington Gas Energy
Services MD RFP Solar Only PV 3 MW N/A 5

- Sep

14

National Grid RI RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A 90 MW 5

- Aug

14

Southwester
n Public
Service Company NM RFP All
Source PV N/A 2 MW 10

- Sep

10

Public
Service Co of

NH NH RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

SWH N/A 100 kW 7

- Jun

14

Potomac
Edison (FirstEnergy) MD RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 536

MW 8

- Jun

15

Baltimore
Gas &
Electric (Exelon) MD RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A N/A

Baltimore
Gas &
Electric (Exelon) MD RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 2251

MW 8

- Jun

15

Delmarva
Power (PEPCO) MD RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 330

MW 8

- Jun

15

### 116

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

PEPCO MD RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 967

MW 8

- Jun

15

San Diego
Gas &
Electric CA RFP All
Source PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 800

MW 5

- Jan

15

City of Burlington

Electric VT RFP Solar Only PV N/A N/A 6

- Oct

14

NV Energy NV RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 10 MW 100

MW 12

-

Nov

- 14

Pennsylvania
Electric Company PA RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A 6

- Nov

14

Penn Power (First Energy) PA RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A 6

- Nov

14

Met

- Ed (FirstEnergy) PA RFP Solar Only PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A 6

- Nov

14

Oncor TX RFP All
Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV 30 MWh N/A 17

- Dec

- 14

### 117

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

South
Carolina
Electric &
Gas SC RFP Solar Only N/A N/A 4 MW 3

- Oct

14 https://www.s

ceg.com/abou

t

us/newsroom /2014/08/21/

sce

- g

- issues

request

- for

proposals

- to

supply

- solar

energy

- on

- its

system

Puget Sound Energy WA RFP All
Source N/A N/A N/A 1

- Nov

11

NorthWester

n Energy MT RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 45 MW 14

- Jul

14 http://www.la

ndsenergy.co m/wp

content/uploa ds/2014/06/N
orthWestern

2014

- CREP

RFP.pdf

Indianapolis
Power & Light IN RFP All
Source N/A 550 MW 725
MW 10

- Sep

12 http://www.r

euters.com/ar ticle/2013/05/ 13/utilities

aes

- coal

idUSL2N0DU1
PH20130513

Seattle City Light WA RFP All
Renew a ble N/A N/A 150
MWh 15

- Oct

12 http://powerli

nes.seattle.go v/2012/09/10

### 118

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

/seattle

- city

light

- seeks

proposals

- on

renewable

energy/

San Diego
Gas &
Electric CA RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 72 MW 27

- Jun

14

El Paso
Electric TX RFP Solar Only N/A 80 MW 200
MW 8

- Aug

11

Arizona
Public
Service AZ RFP Solar Only N/A N/A 10 MW 24

- Jul

14

Hawaiian
Electric Co HI RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 200
MW 29

- Jul

13

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA RFP Solar Only N/A N/A N/A 27

- Nov

- 13

Conn. Light
& Power (Northeast Utilities) CT RFP All
Source N/A N/A N/A 31

- Dec

- 13

Green
Mountain
Power VT RFP Solar Only N/A N/A N/A 6

- Dec

13

Kaua'i Island Utility Co

- op HI RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A 18

- Apr

14

### 119

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Palo Alto
Utilities CA RFP Solar Only N/A 1 MW 3 MW 12

- Aug

- 14

San Diego
Gas &
Electric CA RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A 20 MW 100
MW 29

- Jan

14 http://www.s

dge.com/rene
wable

portfolio

standard

- rfo

december

2013

Xcel Energy

- CO CO RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 2 MW 3

- Sep

14

Austin Energy TX RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 4 MW 14

- May

- 14 http://austine

nergy.com/wp s/wcm/conne ct/e275cee1

- 32d8

- 4f8b

b36f

5d9d9c3927e 7/Community
SolarRFPfinal

rev05072014. pdf?MOD=AJP
ERES

Hawaiian
Electric Co HI RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A 60 MW 200
MW 21

- Jul

14 http://cleante

chnica.com/2 014/05/14/20
0

- mw

- energy

storage

proposed

hawaii/

### 120

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

NSTAR (Northeast Utilities) MA RFP Solar Only N/A 5 MW N/A 28

- Jun

13

Los Angeles

DWP CA RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A 11

- Nov

- 11

Baltimore
Gas &
Electric (Exelon) MD RFP All
Source N/A 1831

MW N/A 31

- Oct

13

Tennessee Valley Authority TN RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A 13

- Mar

- 15

Sacra mento Municipal Utility Dist. CA RFP Solar Only N/A N/A 200
MW 1

- Jul

13

Alliant Energy WI RFP All
Renewa
ble N/A N/A 600
MW 25

- Jul

14

Inland Power & Light WA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Wyandotte Municipal
Serv Comm MI Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Central Virginia Electric Coop VA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

### 121

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

CoServ
Electric TX Net

Metering All

Source PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Washington Electric Coop
Inc VT Net

Metering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. CA Net

Metering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Central Electric Coop
Inc OR Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Sulphur Springs Valley EC AZ Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Delta
Montrose
Electric Assn CO Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Delta
Montrose
Electric Assn CO Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Inland Power & Light WA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Truckee
Donner PUD CA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 1000

kW N/A

### 122

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

St. George Energy Svcs. Dept. UT Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

St. George Energy Svcs. Dept. UT Net

Metering Solar

Only PV N/A 250 kW N/A

La Plata
Electric Assn CO Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Consumers
Power OR Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV,

SWH N/A N/A N/A

Imperial Irrigation
District CA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A N/A

Lompoc
Electric Utility CA Net

Metering Solar

Only PV N/A N/A N/A

Silicon Valley
Power CA Net

Metering All

Renewa
ble PV N/A 1 MW N/A

Sulphur Springs Valley EC AZ Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

United
Power CO Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

### 123

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Pacific
Power (PacifiCorp) OR Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Sulphur Springs Valley EC AZ Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

West Penn
Powe r (FirstEnergy) PA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Ameren
Missouri MO Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Trico Electric
Co

- op AZ Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Central
Electric Coop
Inc OR Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Columbia
Water & Light MO Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

NV Energy NV Net

Metering N/A PV N/A 1 MW N/A

Sierra Pacific
Power Co NV Net

Metering N/A PV N/A 1 MW N/A

Pacific
Power (PacifiCorp) WA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

### 124

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Snohomish County PUD WA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Southern
Indiana Gas
& Elec Co IN Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) WY Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Puget Sound Energy WA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Western
Massachuset
ts Elec Co MA Net

Metering N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Western
Massachuset
ts Elec Co MA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Puget So und Energy WA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Seattle City Light WA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) WY Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A http://www.p ge.com/en/m

### 125

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

ybusiness/ser vices/nonpge/
generateownp ower/netener gymetering/st andardnem/in dex.page

Pacific
Power (PacifiCorp) WA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A https://www. pacificpower. net/content/d am/pacificorp /doc/Transmis sion/Transmis sion_Services/ Generation_In
terconnection /PC_Interconn ection_LrgCus t_Brochure.pd
f

Sierra Pacific
Power Co NV Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A 1 MW N/A

NV Energy NV Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A 1 MW N/A http://dsireus a.org/incentiv es/incentive.cf m?Incentive_
Code=NV09R
&re=0&ee=0

Columbia
Water & Light MO Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

### 126

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Ellensburg
Electric Utility WA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Florida
Power & Light FL Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Consumers Energy MI Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Entergy New
Orleans LA Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Dover Electric Dept. DE Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

United
Power CO Intercon

nection N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Silicon Valley
Power CA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV N/A 1 MW N/A

Sulphur Springs Valley EC AZ Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV N/A N/A N/A

Lompoc
Electric Utility CA Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV N/A N/A N/A

Wyandotte Municipal
Serv Comm MI Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A http://www.w yan.org/Energ

y

Programs/PDF /ExpeditedGe

### 127

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

neratorInterco
nnection2012.

aspx

Imperial Irrigation
District CA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A N/A

Southern Maryland
Elec Co

- op MD Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV N/A 10 MW N/A

Consumers
Power OR Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

SWH N/A N/A N/A

La Plata
Electric Assn CO Intercon

nection All

Source PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Truckee
Donner PUD CA Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV N/A 1000
kW N/A

Verendr ye Electric Co

op ND Intercon

nection All

Source PV,

SWH N/A N/A N/A

Hickman

Fulton
Counties
RECC KY Intercon

nection All

Source PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Town of
Middletown DE Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A N/A

### 128

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) UT Intercon

nection N/A PV,

CPV N/A N/A N/A

St. George Energy Svcs. Dept. UT Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Inland Power & Light WA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Inland Power & Light WA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Sulphur Springs Valley EC AZ Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Central Electric Coop
Inc OR Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Florida Keys
Electric Co

op FL Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Florida Keys
Electric Co

op FL Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Florida Keys
Electric Co

op FL Intercon

nection Solar

Only PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

### 129

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Central Virginia Electric Coop VA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Fort
Loudoun
Electric Co

op TN Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

SWH N/A N/A N/A

Fort Loudoun
Electric Co

op TN Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Peninsula Light Co WA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. CA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

CoServ
Electric TX Intercon

nection All

Source PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Imperial Irrigation
District CA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Inland Power & Light WA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

### 130

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Kit Carson
Electric Co

op NM Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A 10 kW N/A

Georgia
Power (Southern Co) GA Intercon

nection All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A 25 kW N/A

Southern Maryland
Elec Co

- op MD Intercon

nection N/A PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) All

Renewa
ble N/A N/A N/A N/A

Duke Energy
Carolinas NC Energy

Purchase s (PPA) Solar

Only PV N/A 52 MW N/A http://www.d
uke

energy.com/n ews/releases/

2014030601.a

sp

Rocky Mtn
Power (PacifiCorp) UT Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV,

CPV N/A N/A N/A

La Plata
Electric Assn CO Energy

Purchase s (PPA) Solar

Only PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A http://www.e asycleanenerg y.com/Shown ews.aspx?ID=
86ac9b38

- e7a2

- 4402

- a2d4

-

### 131

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

52e187d5b6 1
2

Southern Maryland
Elec Co

- op MD Energy

Purchase s (PPA) Solar

Only PV N/A 10 MW N/A

Anaheim
Public
Utilities CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Southern
California
Edison CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

CPS Energy TX Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

NV Energy NV Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV 20 MW 20 MW N/A

Hawaiian
Electric Co HI Energy

Purchase s (PPA) Solar

Only PV 20 MW 20 MW N/A http://www.h
awaiianelectri c.com/heco/_ hidden_Hidde n/CorpComm/
Hawaiian

Electric

- and

Ka

- La

- Nui

Solar

- sign

-

### 132

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

agreement

for

- new

project?cpsext
currchannel=1

El Paso
Electric TX Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV 10 MW 10 MW N/A http://investo
r.firstsolar.co m/releasedeta
il.cfm?releasei
d=769487

Austin Energy TX Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Georgia
Power (Southern Co) GA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

North
Carolina
Eastern M P
A NC Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Southern
California
Edison CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A N/A N/A

Pacific Gas &
Electric CA Energy

Purchase s (PPA) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

### 133

Utility State Procure

ment Topic Type Techno

logies Min. Size Max.

Size Deadli

ne Program

Details

Palo Alto
Utilities CA Energy

Purchase s (FIT) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Gainesville Regional
Utilities FL Energy

Purchase s (FIT) N/A PV N/A N/A N/A

Public
Service
Electric & Gas Co. Long
Island NY Energy

Purchase s (FIT) All

Renewa
ble PV N/A N/A N/A

Southern
California
Edison CA Energy

Purchase s (FIT) All

Renewa
ble PV,

CSP, CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Anaheim
Public
Utilities CA Energy

Purchase s (FIT) All

Renewa
ble PV,

CPV,
SWH N/A N/A N/A

Truckee
Donner PUD CA Energy

Purchase s (FIT) All

Renewa
ble PV,

CSP,
CPV N/A 1000

kW N/A

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. CA Energy

Purchase s (FIT) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Public
Service
Electric & Gas Co. Long
Island NY Energy

Purchase s (FIT) All

Renewa
ble N/A 100 kW 2000
kW N/A

### 134

Utility Unregulated Activities

Alabama Power (Southern Co) http://www.southerncompany.com/about

- us/our

business/southern

- power/home.cshtml

Pacific Power (PacifiCorp) http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

business es/midamerican

- renewables

SDG&E http://www.semprausgp.com/

Southern California Edison http://www.socoreenergy.com/

Gulf Power (Southern Co) http://www.southerncompany.com/about

- us/our

business/southern

- power/home.cshtml

Florida Power & Light http://www. nexteraenergyresources.com/home/index.shtml

Duke Energy Florida http://www.duke

- energy.com/commercial

renewables/default.asp

Georgia Power (Southern Co) http://www.southerncompany.com/about

- us/our

business/southern

- power/home.cshtml

Rocky Mountain Power (Pacificorp) http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renewables

ComEd(Exelon) http://www.constellation.com/pages/default.aspx

Duke Energy Kentucky http://www.duke

- energy.com/commercial

renewables/default.asp

Baltimore Gas & Electric (Exelon) http://www.constellation.com/pages/default.aspx

Mississippi Power (Southern Co) http://www.southe rncompany.com/about

- us/our

business/southern

- power/home.cshtml

Sierra Pacific Power Co http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renew ables

NV Energy http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renewables

### 135

Utility Unregulated Activities

PSEG https://pseg.com/family/holdings/global/solar_source/index.jsp

Con Edison http://www.conedsolutions.com/About.aspx

Orange & Rockland Utilities (Con Ed) http://www.conedsolutions.com/About.aspx

Rockland Electric Co http://www.conedsolutions.com/About.aspx

Duke Energy Carolinas http://www.duke

- energy.com/commercial

renewables/default.asp

Duke Energy Progress http://www.duke

- energy.com/commercia l

renewables/default.asp

Duke Energy Ohio http://www.duke

- energy.com/commercial

renewables/default.asp

Pacific Power (PacifiCorp) http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renewables

Pike County Light & Power (Con
Ed http://www.conedsolutions.com/About.aspx

PECO (Exelon) http://www.constellation.com/pages/default.aspx

Rocky Mountain Power (Pacificorp) http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renewables

Pepco Energy Services No Url/Info

Pacific Power (PacifiCorp) http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/our

businesses/midamerican

- renewables

### 136

Utility Property Leasing

Arizona Public Service http://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservi ces/apsfyi/Pages/luke

- air

- force

- base

- and

- aps

partner

- on

- new

- solar

- faci lity.aspx

San Diego Gas & Electric http://www.sdge.com/environment/sustainable

communities

- overview

Miami Electric Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuite
m.508576f78baa14340b4c0610c51 0b1ca/?vgnex toid=bc759f5b0e9f0210VgnVCM1000005c011bac RCRD&vgnextfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Hawaii Electric Light Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuite m.508576f78baa14340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnex toid=bc759f5b0e9f0210VgnVCM1000005c011bac RCRD&vgnextfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Detroit Edison (DTE Energy) https:/ /www2.dteenergy.com/wps/portal/dte/ab outus/environment/details/Renewable%20Energ y/Solar%20Energy/!ut/p/b1/hZLZbqNAEEW_JR_g 0CxN40eWNgZDsxPgBWEbE7PEELBZvn6c0USazC hOvbV0TpWqblMJFVHJW3Y7F9lwvrxl9cc74VNW MEgIA8vx3ZADGpKgRwQTCJC5A_EdAN

UCL76hkbDDx_Ius7TANB__AfAo_ kO

vQt0fW4DwAADDQ3VOztTmBVE_3kv1CRH7OSct FGLIZp6

- aWn10ZIHFEKEgXX2Vm3OhdjIfukm5v5OA4ZWrO 1XzIQOQFdentrNZ6y4SgG69ljrR42I1m3dpemiDN PDiVi5tsvnS5XeT7kMmdBb_zxVskGUajyivZnuxwE eNYsBFzrpdbfpY6S2WlLFPXDgxR57AWX0HHPLSK 8YJ2oJ3U5TqN6RASN_n3fv8v

- EN

OpWc983zeGiewTOANESARY hBkGYADe_nSX53e BTww4gF_hP4PiKyvTQ5Fd8x9Fcfk98AjegK5v0Aq
DJP

VQEuNQr51ZbqsUtwQxMXC394rD0PtSIH_nExzRZ yzRRvJHGtEGUeOz3MjCNHTDJyT6GbiCJourrL9rX1 RHPMCwLOIEBEME1S4VlzCOl10YF379FMKhNP_X

### 137

Utility Property Leasing

d1i3FsysT_kCTjZ57FeunJe06bjCax2Zl3eKpTpcMc8 GAwVzVuBv2pOZnwa1K9xrLZMP6W1d0tkTU6_ e bLLFT0lQN1

- 70dF9ds8tpsl8PUYgj2inhop8vp4Jbi6vAH9xXZt2P1 2WsjqDBYhJtjhZbSYKfzqk9WZ12cuJ

jvYynq8KEwJ1luVtVPiF3ZFjebJhtnLmefWqOiukwz 5fxOKJapsgCG4G1PFJiRbx6Re8scA8/dl4/d5/L2dBI SEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

Hawaiian Electric Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuite m.508576f78baa14340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnex toid=bc759f5b0e9f0210VgnVCM10000 05c011bac RCRD&vgnextfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Public Service Elec & Gas https://www.pseg.com/family/pseandg/solar4all /index.jsp

Duke Energy Carolinas https://www.duke

- energy.com/north

carolina/renewable

- energy/nc

- solar

- distributed

generation

- program.asp

Dominion VA https://www.dom.com/

Utility Solar Rates

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. https://www.smud.org/en/residential/environment/s
olar

- for

- your

- home/solarshares/

Salt River Project http://www.srpnet.com/menu/solar/SRPcommunitys olar.aspx

Tucson Electric Power (UNS Energy) https://www.tep.com/renewable/home/ bright/

Arizona Public Service http://www.aps.com/en/communityandenvironment /environment/solarinitiatives/Pages/home.aspx

### 138

Utility Solar Rates

Los Angeles DWP https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/partner s/p

- gogreen/p

- gg

localrenewableenergyprogram;jsessionid=cpX2J0yDY Gfy04BzC1tp17v6wyQ2p2lKqx55mGYn3VYJghhQH7L
C!

- 408981786?_afrWindowId=null&_afrLoop=38626921 6634456&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl

state=7m84b1 ko4_17

Palo Alto Utilities http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/busines s/sustainability/clean.asp

United Power http://www.unitedpower.com/mainNav/greenPower /solPartners.aspx

Holy Cross Energy http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/news/ne ws_template.shtml?id=1564

Fort Collin s Utilities http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/
renewables

Lee County Electric Co

- op, INC https://www.lcec.net/energy

- efficiency/net

metering

- program

Gainesville Regional Utilities https://www.gru.com/TabID/3824/Default.aspx

Orlando Utilities Commission http://www.ouc.com/environment

community/solar/community

- solar

Maui Electric Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuitem.5
08576f78baa14340b4c0610c51 0b1ca/?vgnextoid=0b 0a8618ce4f7210VgnVCM1000005c011bacRCRD&vgn extfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Hawaii Electric Light Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuitem.5 08576f78baa14340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnextoid=0b 0a8618ce4f7210VgnVCM1000005c011bacRCRD&vgn extfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

### 139

Utility Solar Rates

Hawaiian Electric Co http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuitem.5 08576f78baa14340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnex toid=0b 0a8618ce4f7210VgnVCM1000005c011bacRCRD&vgn extfmt=default&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Indianapolis Power & Light http://www.iplpower.com /uploadedFiles/iplpowerco m/Business/Programs_and_Services/Rate%20REP

Apr%2010.pdf

Nstar Community Power http://www.easycleanenergy.com/communitysolarpr ojects.aspx

National Grid ht tp://www.easycleanenergy.com/communitysolarpr ojects.aspx

Consumers Energy http://www.consumersenergy.com/content.aspx?id=

4844

DTE Energy https://www2.dteenergy.com/wps/portal/dte/about us/environment/details/Renewable%20Energy/Solar %20Energy/!ut/p/b1/hZLZbqNAEEW_JR_g0CxN40eW NgZDsxPgBWEbE7PEELBZvn6c0USazChOvbV0TpWqbl MJFVHJW3Y7F9lwvrxl9cc74VNWMEgIA8vx3ZADGpKg RwQTCJC5A_EdAN

UCL76hkbDDx_Ius7TANB __AfAo_kO

vQt0fW4DwAADDQ3VOztTmBVE_3kv1CRH7OSctFGLI Zp6

- aWn10ZIHFEKEgXX2Vm3OhdjIfukm5v5OA4ZWrO1XzI QOQFdentrNZ6y4SgG69ljrR42I1m3dpemiDNPDiVi5ts vnS5XeT7kMmdBb_zxVskGUajyivZnuxwEeNYsBFzrpd bfpY6S2WlLFPXDgxR57AWX0HHPLSK8YJ2oJ3U5TqN6 RASN_n3fv8v

- EN

OpWc983zeGiewTO ANESARYhBkGYADe_nSX53eBTw w4gF_hP4PiKyvTQ5Fd8x9Fcfk98AjegK5v0AqDJP

VQEuNQr51ZbqsUtwQxMXC394rD0PtSIH_nExzRZyzR RvJHGtEGUeOz3MjCNHTDJyT6GbiCJourrL9rX1RHPMC wLOIEBEME1S4VlzCOl10YF379FMKhNP_Xd1i3FsysT_ kCTjZ57FeunJe06bjCax2Zl3eKpTpcMc8GAwVzVuBv2p

### 140

Utility Solar Rates

OZnwa1K9xrLZMP6W1d 0tkTU6_ebLLFT0lQN1

- 70dF9ds8tpsl8PUYgj2inhop8vp4Jbi6vAH9xXZt2P12W sjqDBYhJtjhZbSYKfzqk9WZ12cuJ

jvYynq8KEwJ1luVtVPiF3ZFjebJhtnLmefWqOiukwz5fxO KJapsgCG4G1PFJiRbx6Re8scA8/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBI S9nQSEh/

TVA http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/providers/

Austin Energy http://austinenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/c6c8ad2

0

- ee8f

- 4d89

- be 36

- 2d6f7433edbd/ResidentialSolar.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

CPS Energy http://www.solarsanantonio.org/wp

content/uploads/2010/07/SolartricityFAQsFinalv4

- 12

- 2010.pdf

Dominion VA https://www.dom.com/

Wisconsin Electric Power Co http://www.we

energies.com/business/altenergy/rateschedule_cgs

pv.pdf

Madison Gas & Electric http://www.mge.com/customer

- service/home/elec

rates

- res/clean

- power.htm

Utility Utility Ownership

Arizona Public Service No URL; PucDocket #: E

- 01345A

- 10

- 0166, E

- 01345A

- 11

- 0264

Tuscon Electric Power (UNS Energy https://www.tep.com/pages/SolarStats/SolarTech.html

San Diego Gas & Electric http://www.sdge.com/node/710

Florida Power & Light http://www.fp l.com/environment/solar/projects.shtml

### 141

Utility Utility Ownership

Trico Electric Co

- op http://www.trico.coop/

PG&E http://www.pg e.com/en/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectric suppliersolicitation/PVRFO2012/index.page

United Power http://www.unitedpower.com/mainNav/greenPower/solPartn

ers.aspx

Delta Montrose Electric Assn http://www.dmea.com/index.php?option=com_content&view
=article&id=156&Itemid=101

Grand Valley Rural Power Line http://www.gvp.org/content/solar

- farm

Newark Electric Dept. http://cityofnewarkde.us/index.aspx?nid=900

Florida Keys Electric Co

- op http://www.fkec.com/Green/simplesolar.cfm

Coastal EMC http://www.coastalemc.com/CoastalElectricRenewables.aspx

Georgia Power (Southern Co) http://www.georgiapower.com/about

- energy/energy

sources/solar/solar

- projects/3x30.cshtml

Hawaiian Electric Co http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hawaiian

- electric

requests

- approval

- to

- move

- forward

- with

- 15

- megawatt

- solar

ene rgy

- project

- 2013

- 10

- 24?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Kaua"I Island Utility Co

- op http://website.kiuc.coop/content/solar

Farmers Electric Co

- op https://sites.google.com/site/feckalona/services/documents/p
df

- files/flyer500

- c.pdf.pdf?attredirects=1

Southern Maryland Electric Co

- op No Url: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative's (SMECO) 5.5
MW s olar project is located on 47 acres of utility

- owned land. The solar farm was developed to help comply with Maryland RPS, which requires RECs to be generated within Maryland beginning in 2012. SMECO's solar farm will supply all of the utility's REC obligat ions for 2013.

### 142

Utility Utility Ownership

Nantucket Electric Co No Url: National Grid companies, Massachusetts Electric Compan y and Nantucket Electric Compan y propose to build own and operate 5 MW of PV on 5 different utility

- owned properties. Most of the locations are underutilized, former manufactured gas plants (MGP). The five individual projects will range in size from .62 MW to 1.3 MW and will total 5 MW. National Grid will solicit competitive bids for construction. The development of these facilities will have no i mpact on retail choice and the costs and benefits will be spread across
all customers.

National Grid National Grid companies, Massachusetts Electric Compan y and Nantucket Electric Compan y propose to build own and operate 5 MW of PV on 5 different utility

- owned properties. Most of the locations are underutilized, former manufactured gas plants (MGP). The five individual projects will range in size
from .62 No Url: MW to 1.3 MW and will total 5 MW. National Grid will solicit competitive bids for constructio n. The development of these facilities will have no impact on retail choice and the costs and benefits will be spread across
all customers.

Western Massachusetts Electric https://www.w meco.com/energywise/largescalesolar.aspx

DTE Energy https://www2.dteenergy.com/wps/portal/dte/aboutus/enviro nment/details/Renewable%20Energy/Solar%20Energy/!ut/p/b 1/hZLZbqNAEEW_JR_g0CxN40eWNgZDsxPgBWEbE7PEELBZvn 6c0USazChOvbV0TpWqblMJFVHJW3Y7F9lwvrxl9cc74V NWMEg IA8vx3ZADGpKgRwQTCJC5A_EdAN

UCL76hkbDDx_Ius7TANB__AfAo_kO

vQt0fW4DwAADDQ3VOztTmBVE_3kv1CRH7OSctFGLIZp6

- aWn10ZIHFEKEgXX2Vm3OhdjIfukm5v5OA4ZWrO1XzIQOQFde ntrNZ6y4SgG69ljrR42I1m3dpemiDNPDiVi5tsvnS5XeT7kMmdB b_zxVskGUajyivZnuxwEeNYsBFzrpdbfpY6S2WlLFPXDgxR57 AW X0HHPLSK8YJ2oJ3U5TqN6RASN_n3fv8v

- EN

OpWc983zeGiewTOANESARYhBkGYADe_nSX53eBTww4gF_hP 4PiKyvTQ5Fd8x9Fcfk98AjegK5v0AqDJP

-

### 143

Utility Utility Ownership

VQEuNQr51ZbqsUtwQxMXC394rD0PtSIH_nExzRZyzRRvJHGtEG UeOz3MjCNHTDJyT6GbiCJourrL9rX1RHPMCwLOIEBEME1S4Vlz COl10YF379FMKhNP_Xd1i3FsysT_kCTjZ57Fe unJe06bjCax2Zl3e KpTpcMc8GAwVzVuBv2pOZnwa1K9xrLZMP6W1d0tkTU6_ebLL FT0lQN1

- 70dF9ds8tpsl8PUYgj2inhop8vp4Jbi6vAH9xXZt2P12WsjqDBYhJt jhZbSYKfzqk9WZ12cuJ

jvYynq8KEwJ1luVtVPiF3ZFjebJhtnLmefWqOiukwz5fxOKJapsgC G4G1PFJiRbx6Re8scA8/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

Lake Re gion Electric Co

- op http://www.lrec.coop/solar

Public Service Electric & Gas https://www.pseg.com/family/pseandg/solar4all/index.jsp

PNM New Mexico No Url: PNM issued an RFP for Customer

- Sited Utility

- Owned (CSUO) PV installations in August 2009 with responses due in September 2009. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission denied approval for the program in August 2010 due to program cos ts. The purpose of the CSUO program was to help PNM meet New Mexico RPS. Only systems between 3 kW and 4 MW were
el igib le. Projects where material cost and workforce were based in New Mexico were favored, in order to assist the New Mexico economy. Once pro jects were completed, ownership
would be transferred to PNM.

Con Edison No Url: ConEd's Solar Energy Pilot Program was developed to spur the development of 12 MW of PV in 18 months, better understand the grid impacts of distributed generation, integrate w ith Smart Grid and wholesale capacity markets, test market mechanisms, engage customers and stakeholders, and reduce green house gases. The petition was initially filed with NYPSC February 27, 2009 with a clarification March 11, 2009. The program would initially cost $20

- 25 million, with $3 million per year ongoing.

There are three main program segments. First, installing

### 144

Utility Utility Ownership

customer

- owned solar located on customer property, which would target 2 day

- peaking networks and 3

- 5 feeders. The second component i s utility

- owned solar on utility property, seeking to value of benefits to offset program costs. The third aspect is third

- party

- owned solar purchased via PPAs. This aspect would examine transmission or distribution

- side resources. The utility would take t he energy, capacity, and renewable attributes from this program.

Duke Energy Carolinas https://www.duke

- energy.com/north

- carolina/renew able

energy/nc

- solar

- distributed

- generation

- program.asp

Ashland Electric Dept. http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=14017

Portland General Electric https://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_environment/i nitiatives/renewable_energy/solar_power.aspx

Duck River EMC http://www.dremc.com/community/solar

- farm/

Dixie Escalante REA http://www.sgsunsmart.com/index.htm

St. George Energy Service Dept http://www.sgsunsmar t.com/index.htm

Dominion Va www.dom.com

Seattle City Light http://www.seattle.gov/light/solarenergy/commsolar.asp

Ellensburg Electric Utility http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/index.aspx?NID=310

EAU Claire Electric Co

- op No Url: Eau Claire is planning to offer its members the option to buy one or more solar panels from a roughly 1 MW project. Panels are expected to cost between $625 and $750 each. The project still requires approval of the co

- op board of directors,
which i s not expected to happen until 2015.

The below examples demonstrate solar on the grid within the service territory of each utility, classified by utility type: investor owned utility (IOU), municipal utility or “muni”, and cooperative, or “co

- op”. An

### 145

in vestor

- owned utility (IOU) is operated by a public corporation whose shares are owned by investors. A municipal utility ('muni') is owned and operated, in varying forms, by a municipal (or county) government. A utility cooperative ('coop') is a customer

- o wned, non

- profit utility type that tends to
serve rural areas. The below examples are courtesy of the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) Utility Database. Note the distributed PV that is already a part of these utilities’ energy portfolio.

Utility Name Location Type of Utility All Solar Total (MW) CSP (MW) Total
PV (MW) Distributed

PV (MW) Utility

PV (MW)

Pacific Gas & Electric California IOU 3082.7 125 2957.7 1042.8 1914.9 Duke Energy Florida Florida IOU 15.6 0 15.597 15.59 0.007
Arizona Public Service Arizona IOU 733.1 250 483.083 272.58 209.425
Ge o rgia Power Georgia IOU 67.6 0 67.63 25.88 41.75 Indianapolis Power & Light Indiana IOU 43.2 0 43.244 0.353 42.891 Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG) New Jersey IOU 547 0 547 414.7 132.3
Duke Energy Carolinas North Carolina IOU 129.9 0 129.831 6.694 123.137 NV Energy Nevada IOU 234.8 69 165.753 47.761 117.992 Excel Energy Colorado IOU 239 0 238.995 151.287 87.708 Ohio Power Company Ohio IOU 20 0 19.98 11.916 8.064 CPS Energy Texas Muni 92.7 0 92.743 11.909 80.834 Los Angeles DWP California Muni 92.5 0 92.548 90.116 2.433 Salt River Project Arizona Muni 92.7 1 91.704 59.556 32.148 Seattle City Light Washington Muni 4.7 0 4.72 4.72 0
Orlando Utilities Comm Florida Muni 7.8 0 7.846 3.116 4.73 Holyoke Gas & Electric Department Massachusetts Muni 3.6 0 3.607 0.007 3.6 Memphis Light, Gas and
Water Tennessee Muni 3.5 0 3.496 0.847 2.649 Omaha Public Power District Nebraska Muni 0.3 0 0.347 0.347 0 Colorado Springs Utilities Colorado Muni 6.4 0 6.401 6.401 0 Starkville Electric Dept Mississippi Muni 0.3 0 0.255 0.242 0.013 Kaua'I Island Utility Co

- op Hawaii co

- op 21 0 20.953 13.708 7.245
Delaware Electric Co

- op Delaware co

- op 7.6 0 7.609 3.248 4.361
Trico Electric Co

- op Arizona co

- op 7.6 0 7.591 7.41 0.181
Santee Electric Co

- op South Carolina co

- op 2.9 0 2.915 0.119 2.796

### 146

Southern Maryland Elec Co

- op Maryland co

- op 8.4 0 8.434 4.034 4.4 West Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation Kentucky co

- op 1.8 0 1.759 1.759 0 Holy Cross Energy Colorado co

- op 3.7 0 3.725 2.077 1.648 Middle Tennessee Electric Membership Corporation Tennessee co

- op 3.6 0 3.619 3.619 0
Kit Carson Electric Co

- op New Mexico co

- op 6.4 1.125 5.31 0 5.31
Cullman Electric Co

- Op Alabama co

- op 0.3 0 0.325 0.325 0

Here are several press releases on solar projects for some of the utilities listed above. These press releases highlight some of the key facts about the solar projects.

Pacific Gas & Electric (IOU): http://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20091026_pge_to_buy_500_ megawatts_of_clean_solar_power_from_nextera_and_abengoa_solar

Duke Energy Florida (IOU): http://www.duke

- energy.com/news/releases/2009101301.asp

Georgia Power (IOU): http://southerncompany.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3456

NV Energy (IOU): http://w ww.solarreserve.com/pressReleases/Tonopah_PPA_Press_ReleaseFINAL.pdf

CPS Energy (muni): http://www.renew ableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/how

- the

- right

kind

- of

- electric

- utility

- can

- increase

- solar

- energy

- and

- jobs

Los Angeles DWP (muni): http://investor.firstsolar.com/ releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=834730

Kaua’l Island Utility Co

- op (co

- op): http://kauai.coopwebbuilder.com/content/work

- start

- 54

- million

kiuc

- solar

- projec t

- anahola

Delaware Electric Co

- op (co

- op): http://www.delaware.coop/news/press

- releases/co

- op

- solar

- farm

now

- producing

- power

The following CSP projects in the US represent a new generation of technology that can help states meet EPA’s carbon emission goals. The two projects that include thermal energy storage (Solana and Crescent Dunes) provide the additional benefits of helping maintain grid reliability thr ough the dispatch of electricity whenever it is most needed, providing ancillary services such as spinning and non

- spinning reserves, as well as reactive power.

### 147 Solana Ivanpah Genesis Crescent
Dunes Mojave

Technology Trough w/

6 hours storage Steam

Towers Trough Salt Tower

w/
10 hrs
storage Trough

Capacity (MW, gross) 280 392 280 110 280

Approx. Annual Output (GWh) 945 1,080 560 500 600

CO 2 

### Saved (Metric Tons/yr) 475,000 400,000 330,000 290,000 350,0001 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 3 S o l a r R F P

h t t p : / / w w w

. p a c i f i c o r p

. c o m / s u p / r f p s / r s o l a r 2 0 1 3

. h t m l 1 / 2 

# 2 0 1 3 S o l a r R F P

T h i s s o l a r r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l ( R F P ) ( 2 0 1 3 S S o l a r R F P ) s e e k s a c q u i s i t i o n o f s o l a r r e s o u r c e s t o m e e t t h e C o m p a n y ’ s r e m a i n i n g O r e g o n s o l a r c a p a c i t y m a n d a t e g o a l o f 6

. 7 M W A C . B i d s m u s t c o m p l y w i t h s p e c i f i c R F P

c r i t e r i a i n c l u d i n g ; m e e t i n g c o m p a n y s o l a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t c a p a c i t y g r e a t e r t h a n 5 0 0 k W A C a n d

u p t o 5

. 0 M W A C , c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n d a t e o n o r b e f o r e D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 , f i x e d p r i c e p o w e r p u r c h a s e

a g r e e m e n t o r a s s e t p u r c h a s e a n d s a l e a g r e e m e n t o n l y , a n d d e l i v e r y t o P a c i f i C o r p ’ s s y s t e m o n f i r m b a s i s

.

I n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e R e q u e s t F o r P r o p o s a l ( R F P ) p r o c e s s i s o u t l i n e d b e l o w

. M o r e i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e

a v a i l a b l e a s i t i s r e l e a s e d

. F o r q u e s t i o n s o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n , p l e a s e s e n d a n e m a i l t o R F P S o l a r @ P a c i f i C o r p

. c o m

. 

## S c h e d u l e

E v e n t E s t i m a t e d T i m e l i n e

2 0 1 3 S i s s u e d A p r i l 3 0 , 2 0 1 3

B i d d e r / s t a k e h o l d e r m e e t i n g M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 3

R e s p o n s e s d u e J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 3

B i d e v a l u a t i o n c o m p l e t e d J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 3

S h o r t l i s t s e l e c t i o n J u l y 1 9 , 2 0 1 3

B e s t a n d f i n a l p r i c i n g u p d a t e b y s h o r t l i s t A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 1 3

B i d d e r n e g o t i a t i o n s c o m p l e t e d S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 3

F i n a l s e l e c t i o n O c t o b e r 4 , 2 0 1 3

P r o j e c t c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n d a t e D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 4



## D o c u m e n t s

P a c i f i C o r p R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l S o l a r R e s o u r c e s ( R F P 2 0 1 3 S )



### A p p e n d i c e s
A p p e n d i x A T e c h n i c a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d A p p e n d i x A E x h i b i t s ( A

­ J )

A p p e n d i c e s B

­ K

A p p e n d i x E

­ 2

­ P o w e r P u r c h a s e A g r e e m e n t ( P P A )

A p p e n d i x F

­ 2

­ A s s e t P u r c h a s e a n d S a l e A g r e e m e n t ( A P S A ) & A p p e n d i c e s

A p p e n d i x F

­ 2

­ E P C A g r e e m e n t a n d A p p e n d i c e s

A p p e n d i x H

­ F o r m 1

­ P r i c i n g I n p u t S h e e t

A p p e n d i x J

­ Q u a l i f

y i n g R e p o r t i n g E n t i t y ( Q R E ) A g r e e m e n t

A p p e n d i x K

­ G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s C o n t r a c t

­ O & M S e r v i c e s f o r P h o t o v o l t a i c P r o j e c t



### P r e s e n t a t i o n s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 3 S o l a r R F P

h t t p : / / w w w

. p a c i f i c o r p

. c o m / s u p / r f p s / r s o l a r 2 0 1 3

. h t m l 2 / 2 © 2 0 1 4 P a c i f i C o r p , a s u b s i d i a r y o f B e r k s h i r e H a t h a w a y E n e r g yo u r c o m m i t m e n t

r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y g o a l s

2 0 1 4 r o o f t o p s o l a r p r o g r a m p r o p o s a l

r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y

r e s e a r c h a b o u t u s n e w

s c a r e e r s d o i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h u s g e n e r a t i o n & t r a n s m i s s i o n r a t e s , r e g u l a t i o n s & r e s o u r c e s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 a p s

­ 2 0 1 4 r o o f t o p s o l a r p r o g r a m p r o p o s a l

h t t p : / / w w w

. a p s

. c o m / e n / o u r c o m p a n y / a b o u t u s / i n v e s t m e n t i n r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y / P a g e s / a z s u n

. a s p x ? s r c = a z s u n 2 / 2 e n e s p a ñ o l ?

s i t e m a p | s e r v i c e a r e a s i n t e r e s t l i s t T h e r e i s n o t a w a i t l i s t f o r t h e p r o g r a m b u t w e w i l l c o n t a c t c u s t o m e r s o n t h e i n t e r e s t l i s t i f t h e p r o g r a m i s

a p p r o v e d

. P l e a s e s i g n u p f o r o u r i n t e r e s t l i s t b e l o w i f y o u w o u l d l i k e t o b e n o t i f i e d

.
f r e q u e n t l y a s k e d q u e s t i o n s

o u t a g e c e n t e r | s a f e t y | c a r e e r s | c o n s t r u c t i o n c o r n e r | i n s t a l l e r s | c o n t a c t u s

t o p r e s i d e n t i a l l i n k s

p a y m e n t o p t i o n s

p a y m e n t p r o g r a m s

h o u s e o f r e b a t e s

c o m p a r e s e r v i c e p l a n s

h o m e c h e c k u p

s e r v i c e o r d e r s f a c e b o o k

t w i t t e r

y o u t u b e

f l i c k r f o l l o w u s t o p b u s i n e s s l i n k s

p a y m e n t p r o g r a m s

s t r e e t o f r e b a t e s

l a n d l o r d s

t r a d e a l l i e s

s e r v i c e p l a n s

s e r v i c e o r d e r s c o m m u n i t y & e n v i r o n m e n t

e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t

g i v i n g p r o g r a m s

r e c e n t s t o r i e s

v o l u n t e e r s

e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s

b u s i n e s s m e n t o r i n g o u r c o m p a n y

n e w s r o o m

c a r e e r s

a z e n e r g y f u t u r e

s u p p l i e r d i v e r s i t y

r a t e s & r e g u l a t i o n s

g e n e r a t i o n

m y a c c o u n t | r e s i d e n t i a l | b u s i n e s s | c o m m u n i t y & e n v i r o n m e n t | o u r c o m p a n y

c o p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 4 A P S

. a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d p r i v a c y p o l i c y t e r m s & c o n d i t i o n s s e e w h a t ’ s n e x t f o r A r i z o n a ’ s e n e r g y f u t u r e1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 D u k e E n e r g y R e n e w a b l e s a c q u i r e s t

w o s o l a r p r o

j e c t s f r o m I n f i g e n E n e r g y , a d d i n g 4 0 m e g a w a t t s t o i t s C a l i f

o r n i a p o r t f o l i o

­ D u k e E n e r g y

h t t p : / / w w w

. d u k e

­ e n e r g y

. c o m / n e w s / r e l e a s e s / 2 0 1 4 0 3 0 6 0 1

. a s p 1 / 1 I n v e s t o r s V i e w M o b i l e C h o o s e S t a t e

c h a n g e l o c a t i o n

C H A R L O T T E

, N

. C

. ­ 

# D u k e E n e r g y R e n e w a b l e s a c q u i r e s t w o s o l a r p r o j e c t s f r o m I n f i g e n E n e r g y , a d d i n g 4 0 m e g a w a t t s t o i t s C a l i f o r n i a p o r t f o l i o M a r c h 6

, 2 0 1 4

D u k e E n e r

g y R e n e w a b l e s , a c o m m e r

c i a l b u s i n e s s u n i t o f D u k e E n e r

g y , t o d a y a n n o u n c e d i t s a c q u i s i t i o n o f t w o 2 0

­ m e g a w a t t ( M W ) A C C a l i f o r n i a s o l a r
p r o j e c t s f r o m r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y d e v e l o p e r I n f i g e n E n e r

g y

.

T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

­ r

e a d y P u m p j a c k a n d W i l d w o o d S o l a r P o w e r P r

o j e c t s , l o c a t e d i n K e r n C o u n t y n e a r B a k e r s f i e l d

, r e p r e s e n t D u k e E n e r

g y R e n e w a b l e s ’ t h i r

d a n d f o u r t h u t i l i t y

s c a l e s o l a r p o w e r p r

o j e c t s i n t h e s t a t e

. O n c e t h e p r

o j e c t s a r e c o m p l e t e , t h e c o m p a n y w i l l o w n a n d o p e r a t e m o r e t h a n 6 5 m e g a w a t t s o f s o l a r p o w e r i n C a l i f o r n i a

.

“ T h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f P u m p

j a c k a n d W i l d w o o d w i l l m o r

e t h a n d o u b l e o u r s o l a r p o w e r c a p a c i t y i n C a l i f o r n i a , ” s a i d D u k e E n e r g y R e n e w a b l e s P r

e s i d e n t G r e g W o l f

. “ W e ’ r e p l e a s e d
t o p r o v i d e a n i n c r e a s i n g s u p p l y o f a f f o r

d a b l e , c l e a n e n e r

g y t o t h e n a t i o n ’ s n u m b e r o n e s o l a r m a r k e t

. ”

T h e s o l a r e n e r g y g e n e r a t e d f r o m t h e t w o p r o j e c t s w i l l b e s o l d t h r

o u g h 2 0

­ y e a r p o w e r p u r

c h a s e a g r e e m e n t s w i t h S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a E d i s o n

.

I n f i g e n ’ s U

. S

. C E O

, C r

a i g C a r s o n , s a i d

, “ W e a r

e v e r y p l e a s e d t h a t o u r f i r

s t d e v e l o p m e n t e f f o r

t s i n s o l a r P V h a v e s u c c e e d e d i n b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r s t r o n g c o u n t e r p a r t i e s s u c h

a s S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a E d i s o n a n d D u k e E n e r g y

. W e e x p e c t t h a t t h e e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s c r e a t e d t h r o u g h t h e s e s o l a r p r

o j e c t s w i l l d e l i v e r s i g n i f i c a n t
b e n e f i t s f o r o u r f u t u r

e d e v e l o p m e n t o p p o r

t u n i t i e s

. ”

I n 2 0 1 3

, D u k e E n e r

g y R e n e w a b l e s b u i l t t h e 2 1

­ M W H i g h l a n d e r S o l a r P o w e r P r o j e c t i n T w e n t y n i n e P a l m s a n d a c q u i r

e d t h e 4

. 5

­ M W S u n s e t R e s e r

v o i r p r o j e c t i n S a n F r a n c i s c o

. W i t h i n t h e y e a r , o n c e P u m p

j a c k a n d W i l d w o o d r

e a c h c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n , t h e p r o j e c t s w i l l p u s h D u k e E n e r

g y R e n e w a b l e s ’ t o t a l U

. S

. i n s t a l l e d s o l a r c a p a c i t y t o 1 8 5 M W a t 2 3 u t i l i t y

­ s c a l e f a c i l i t i e s a c r

o s s t h e c o u n t r y

.

I n 2 0 1 1

, I N D U

, a p a r

t n e r s h i p b e t w e e n D u k e E n e r

g y R e n e w a b l e s a n d I n t e g r

y s E n e r g y , c o n s t r u c t e d e i g h t 1

­ M W r

o o f t o p s o l a r p r o j e c t s i n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a

.

A b o u t D u k e E n e r g y R e n e w a b l e s

D u k e E n e r g y R e n e w a b l e s , p a r

t o f D u k e E n e r g y ’ s C o m m e r c i a l B u s i n e s s e s , i s a l e a d e r i n d e v e l o p i n g i n n o v a t i v e w i n d a n d s o l a r e n e r g y g e n e r a t i o n p r o j e c t s f o r c u s t o m e r

s t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. T h e c o m p a n y ’ s g r o w i n g p o r t f o l i o o f c o m m e r

c i a l r e n e w a b l e a s s e t s i n c l u d e s 1 5 w i n d f a r m s a n d 2 1 s o l a r f a r m s i n o p e r a t i o n i n 1 2 s t a t e s , t o t a l i n g

a l m o s t 1

, 8 0 0 m e g a w a t t s i n e l e c t r i c

­ g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y

. L e a r n m o r

e a t w w w

. d u k e ­ e n e r g y

. c o m / r e n e w a b l e s ( h t t p : / / w w w

. d u k e ­ e n e r g y

. c o m / r e n e w a b l e s )

.

H e a d q u a r t e r e d i n C h a r l o t t e , N

. C

. , D u k e E n e r

g y i s a F o r t u n e 2 5 0 c o m p a n y t r

a d e d o n t h e N e w Y o r k S t o c k E x c h a n g e u n d e r t h e s y m b o l D U K

. M o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e

c o m p a n y i s a v a i l a b l e o n t h e I n t e r n e t a t : w w w

. d u k e ­ e n e r g y

. c o m ( h t t p : /

/ w w w

. d u k e ­ e n e r g y

. c o m )

.

A b o u t I n f i g e n E n e r g y

I n f i g e n E n e r g y i s a s p e c i a l i s t r

e n e w a b l e e n e r g y b u s i n e s s

. W e h a v e i n t e r

e s t s i n 2 4 w i n d f a r m s a c r

o s s A u s t r a l i a a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. W i t h a t o t a l i n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y i n

e x c e s s o f 1

, 6 0 0 M W ( o n a n e q u i t y i n t e r

e s t b a s i s )

, w e c u r r

e n t l y g e n e r a t e e n o u g h r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y p e r y e a r t o p o w e r o v e r h a l f a m i l l i o n h o u s e h o l d s

. A s a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d

r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y b u s i n e s s i n A u s t r

a l i a , w e d e v e l o p , b u i l d

, o w n a n d o p e r

a t e e n e r g y g e n e r a t i o n a s s e t s a n d d i r

e c t l y m a n a g e t h e s a l e o f t h e e l e c t r i c i t y t h a t w e p r o d u c e t o a

r a n g e o f c u s t o m e r

s i n t h e w h o l e s a l e m a r k e t

.

I n f i g e n E n e r g y t r a d e s o n t h e A u s t r

a l i a n S e c u r i t i e s E x c h a n g e u n d e r t h e c o d e I F N

.

F o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n p l e a s e v i s i t o u r w e b s i t e : w w w

. i n f i g e n e n e r g y

. c o m ( h t t p : /

/ w w w

. i n f i g e n e n e r g y

. c o m )

D u k e E n e r g y c o n t a c t : T a m m i e M c G e e o r L u k e C u r r i n O f f i c e : 9 8 0

. 3 7 3

. 8 8 1 2 | O f f i c e : 9 8 0

. 3 7 3

. 1 8 4 9

I n f i g e n E n e r g y U

. S

. c o n t a c t : K e l l y K i m b e r l y O f f i c e : 7 1 3

. 3 2 8

. 5 1 5 1

I n f i g e n E n e r g y A u s t r a l i a c o n t a c t : R i c h a r

d F a r r e l l O f f i c e : + 6 1 2 8 0 3 1 9 9 0 0

B a c k t o N e w s R e l e a s e s ( / n e w s / d e f a u l t

. a s p )

© D u k e E n e r g y C o r p o r a t i o n A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 E l e c t r i c i t y f o r W e s t T e

x a s a n d S o u t h e r n N e

w M e x i c o | E l P a s o E l e c t r i c | N e w m a n S o l a r F a c i l i t

y

h t t p : / / w w w

. e p e l e c t r i c

. c o m / n m / b u s i n e s s / n e w m a n

­ s o l a r

­ f

a c i l i t y 1 / 2 

# E l P a s o E l e c t r i c

P o w e r O n N e w s N e w s l e t t e r O u t a g e s C o n t a c t

k e y w o r d s

. . .



## I n s i d e E l P a s o E l e c t r i c R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v i c e s B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C u s t o m e r L o g i n

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n


# N e w m a n S o l a r F a c i l i t y

R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y > R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o j e c t s

R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n o f f

a c i l i t i e s l e s s t h a n 1 0 k W I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n o f f

a c i l i t i e s g r e a t e r t h a n 1 0 k W a n d l e s s t h a n 1 0 0 k W N M I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n o f F a c i l i t i e s G r e a t e r T h a n 1 0 0 k W a n d u p t o 1
, 0 0 0 k W R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o

j e c t s R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d

u c a t i o n P r o j e c t s E l P a s o E l e c t r i c

­ O w n e d S o l a r P r o j e c t s P u r c h a s e d P o w e r A g r e e m e n t P r o j e c t s U

. S

. S o l a r F a c i l i t i e s M a

p s S i g n

­ u p N e w M e x i c o E P E R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o c u r e m e n t P l a n 2 0 1 4 R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o c u r e m e n t P l a n A p p l i c a t i o n 2 0 1 3 R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o c u r e m e n t P l a n C o n t a c t U s R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y L i n k s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 E l e c t r i c i t y f o r W e s t T e

x a s a n d S o u t h e r n N e

w M e x i c o | E l P a s o E l e c t r i c | N e w m a n S o l a r F a c i l i t

y

h t t p : / / w w w

. e p e l e c t r i c

. c o m / n m / b u s i n e s s / n e w m a n

­ s o l a r

­ f

a c i l i t y 2 / 2 

### N e w m a n S o l a r F a c i l i t

y



## N e w m a n S o l a r f

a c i l i t y , l o c a t e d i n n o r t h e a s t E l P a s o , T e x a s , w i l l b e a 1 0 M W A C g r o u n d m o u n t e d s i n g l e

a x i s t r a c k i n g P V s y s t e m t h a t w i l l i n t e r c o n n e c t t o a d e d i c a t e d E P E ’ s 1 3

. 8

­ k V d i s t r i b u t i o n f e e d e r

. T h e P u r c h a s e P o w e r A g r e e m e n t i s b e t w e e n N e w m a n S o l a r , L L C ( o w n e d b y P S E G ) a n d E l P a s o E l e c t r i c ( E P E )

.

P r o j e c t H i g h l i g h t s :



## C o n t r a c t l i f e : 3 0

­ y e a r p o w e r p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t C o n s t r u c t i o n G r o u n d B r e a k : A p r i l 2 0 1 4 E x p e c t e d C o m m e r c i a l O p e r a t i o n D a t e : D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4

A l l R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y C e r t i f

i c a t e s ( R E C ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s o l a r e n e r g y w i l l b e o w n e d b y E P E

. N e w m a n S o l a r f

a c i l i t y w i l l g e n e r a t e e n o u g h c l e a n e n e r g y t o p o w e r m o r e t h a n 3
, 8 0 0 a v e r a g e h o m e s

.

R e s i d e n t i a l

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n

B u s i n e s s

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n

I n s i d e E l P a s o E l e c t r i c

A b o u t E l P a s o E l e c t r i c C o m m u n i t y C a r e e r s

I n v e s t o r R e l a t i o n s D o i n g B u s i n e s s W i t h E P E T r a n s m i s s i o n

© 2 0 1 4 E l P a s o E l e c t r i c | P r i v a c y P o l i c y | T e r m s o f U s e

D e s i g n e d b y S t a n t o n S t r e e t1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 E l e c t r i c i t y f o r W e s t T e

x a s a n d S o u t h e r n N e

w M e x i c o | E l P a s o E l e c t r i c |

h t t p : / / w w w

. e p e l e c t r i c

. c o m / r e n e w a b l e

­ e n e r g y / N R 0 1 1 / 3 

# E l P a s o E l e c t r i c

P o w e r O n N e w s N e w s l e t t e r O u t a g e s C o n t a c t

k e y w o r d s

. . .



## I n s i d e E l P a s o E l e c t r i c R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v i c e s B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C u s t o m e r L o g i n

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n


# R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y P r o j e c t s

V i e w E n e r g y T r a c k e r



# R o a d r u n n e r S o l a r G e n e r a t i n g F a c i l i t y

P r o j e c t T y p e : S o l a r t h i n

­ f

i l m p a n e l s p r o v i d e d b y F i r s t S o l a r P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n : S a n t a T e r e s a , N e w M e x i c o P r o j e c t O w n e r : N R G F u e l S o u r c e : S o l a r P r o j e c t C a p a c i t y : 2 0 M W1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 E l e c t r i c i t y f o r W e s t T e

x a s a n d S o u t h e r n N e

w M e x i c o | E l P a s o E l e c t r i c |

h t t p : / / w w w

. e p e l e c t r i c

. c o m / r e n e w a b l e

­ e n e r g y / N R 0 1 2 / 3 

## P o w e r O u t p u t N u m b e r o f H o m e s P o w e r e d P o w e r ( k w ) 1 8
, 0 0 0 1 6
, 0 0 0 1 4
, 0 0 0 1 2
, 0 0 0 1 0
, 0 0 0 8
, 0 0 0 6
, 0 0 0 4
, 0 0 0 2
, 0 0 0 H o u r s i n M o u n t a i n S t a n d a r d T i m e ( M S T )

­ 1 1 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 C o m m e r c i a l O p e r a t i o n D a t e : A u g u s t 2 0 1 1

E l P a s o E l e c t r i c p u r c h a s e s 2 0 M W o f e l e c t r i c i t y g e n e r a t e d f r o m s o l a r p o w e r f

r o m t h e R o a d r

u n n e r S o l a r G e n e r a t i n g F a c i l i t y l o c a t e d i n S a n t a T e r e s a , N e w M e x i c o

. T h e R o a d r u n n e r S o l a r F a c i l i t y , w h i c h b e g a n

o p e r a t i o n s i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 1
, i s o w n e d b y N R G

. T h e S o l a r R o a d r u n n e r P l a n t u s e s t h i n

­ f

i l m p a n e l s p r o v i d e d b y F i r s t S o l a r a n d s i n g l e

­ a x i s t r a c k i n g o f t h e s u n t o c a p t u r e s o l a r r a y s a n d c o n v e r t t h e m i n t o

e l e c t r i c i t y

.



# T h i s s i t e ' s p r o d u c t i o n o v e r t h e p a s t 1 2 h o u r s
.

1 3
, 0 3 7 K w



## 1 2 : 0 0 p m

­ 1 1 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4



# E n e r g y

5 3 , 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 k

w h ( Y e a r l y P r o j e c t i o n )

* N u m b e r o f h o m e s p o w e r e d f

o r t h e y e a r b a s e d o n a v e r a g e h o m e y e a r l y e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n

. * * N u m b e r o f h o m e s b e i n g p o w e r e d b a s e d o n a v e r a g e h o m e h o u r l y e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 E l e c t r i c i t y f o r W e s t T e

x a s a n d S o u t h e r n N e

w M e x i c o | E l P a s o E l e c t r i c |

h t t p : / / w w w

. e p e l e c t r i c

. c o m / r e n e w a b l e

­ e n e r g y / N R 0 1 3 / 3 

## R e s i d e n t i a l

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n

B u s i n e s s

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y E d u c a t i o n

I n s i d e E l P a s o E l e c t r i c

A b o u t E l P a s o E l e c t r i c C o m m u n i t y C a r e e r s

I n v e s t o r R e l a t i o n s D o i n g B u s i n e s s W i t h E P E T r a n s m i s s i o n

© 2 0 1 4 E l P a s o E l e c t r i c | P r i v a c y P o l i c y | T e r m s o f U s e

D e s i g n e d b y S t a n t o n S t r e e t 5 3
, 3 9 0
, 0 0 0 k w h ( Y e a r l y P r o

j e c t i o n ) 4 7
, 2 6 6
, 8 4 7 k w h ( Y e a r t o D a t e )1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c : H a

w a i i a n E l e c t r i c a n d K

a L a N u i S o l a r s i g n a g r e e m e n t f o r n e w p r o j e c t

h t t p : / / w w w

. h a w a i i a n e l e c t r i c

. c o m / h e c o /

_ h i d d e n

_ H i d d e n / C o r p C o m m / H a w a i i a n

­ E l e c t r i c

­ a n d

­ K

a

­ L a

­ N u i

­ S o l a r

­ s i g n

­ a g r e e m e n t

­ f o r

­ n e w

­ p r o j e c t ? c p s e

x t c u r r c h a n

... 1 / 1 C O N T A C T U S S e a r c h

R E S I D E N T I A L B U S I N E S S C L E A N E N E R G Y S A F E T Y A N D E M E R G E N C Y R E C I P E S C O M M U N I T Y E D U C A T I O N C A R E E R S A B O U T U S



# H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c a n d K a L a N u i S o l a r s i g n
a g r e e m e n t f o r n e w p r o

j e c t

F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E D o w n l o a d p r i n t a b l e v e r s i o n ( p d f ) O c t o b e r 1 0
, 2 0 1 4

C o n t a c t : P e t e r R o s e g g P h o n e : ( 8 0 8 ) 5 4 3

­ 7 7 8 0 E m a i l : p e t e r

. r o s e g g @ h a w a i i a n e l e c t r i c

. c o m

H O N O L U L U

, O c t

. 1 0

, 2 0 1 4

– H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y h a s s u b m i t t e d a p o w e r p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t ( P P A ) f o r t h e 1 5

­ m e g a w a t t K a L a N u i S o l a r p r

o j e c t i n W a i a n a e t o t h e H a w a i i P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i s s i o n f o r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l

.

T h i s a n d o t h e r s o l a r p r

o j e c t s w i l l b e n e f i t a l l u t i l i t y c u s t o m e r

s w i t h l o w e r p r i c e s a n d h e l p s u p p o r

t H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c ’ s g o a l t o l o w e r
c u s t o m e r e l e c t r i c b i l l s

.

K a L a N u i S o l a r w i l l c o n s i s t o f a p p r

o x i m a t e l y 6 1

, 0 0 0 f i x e d p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s a n d a s s o c i a t e d e q u i p m e n t o n 7 5 a c r e s l e a s e d f r o m M o u n t a i n V i e w D a i r

y w e s t o f t h e W a i a n a e V a l l e y R o a d a n d P i l i u k a P l a c e i n t e r s e c t i o n

.

K a L a N u i S o l a r , L L C

, a s u b s i d i a r

y o f N e x t E r a E n e r g y R e s o u r c e s , w i l l b u i l d

, o w n a n d o p e r

a t e t h e p r o j e c t

.

K a L a N u i h a s c o n d u c t e d e x t e n s i v e o u t r

e a c h i n t h e W a i a n a e c o m m u n i t y s i n c e e a r l y 2 0 1 3 a n d p l a n s t o c o n t i n u e p u b l i c o u t r e a c h t h r o u g h t h e p e r m i t t i n g , d e s i g n , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n p h a s e s

.

N e x t E r a r e s p o n d e d t o a F e b r u a r

y 2 0 1 3 H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c i n v i t a t i o n f o r r

e n e w a b l e e n e r g y p r o j e c t s o n O a h u a t a l o w l e v e l i z e d c o s t

, g e n e r a l l y b e l o w 1 7 c e n t s p e r k i l o w a t t h o u r

. T h e P U C a p p r o v e d H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c ’ s r

e q u e s t t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h r

e s p o n d i n g d e v e l o p e r

s
o u t s i d e o f t h e l e n g t h i e r c o m p e t i t i v e b i d d i n g p r o c e s s

.

P r i c i n g f o r t h e K a L a N u i S o l a r c o n t r

a c t h a s b e e n p r o v i d e d t o t h e P U C

, b u t i s n o t p u b l i c a t t h i s t i m e w h i l e n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r
r e s p o n d i n g s o l a r d e v e l o p e r

s c o n t i n u e

. T h i s w i l l h e l p e n s u r

e H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c c a n n e g o t i a t e t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e p r i c i n g f o r o u r
c u s t o m e r s

. P r i c e s w i l l b e c o m e p u b l i c a f t e r o t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s a r e c o m p l e t e d

. T h e l o w c o s t p e r k i l o w a t t

­ h o u r i s l o c k e d i n f o r t h e 2 2

­ y e a r d u r a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r

a c t

.

T h e f i n a l c o n t r a c t a l s o a w a i t s c o m p l e t i o n o f a n I n t e r

c o n n e c t i o n R e q u i r

e m e n t s S t u d y t o t i e t h e s o l a r f a c i l i t y t o H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c ’ s 4 6 k V s u b

­ t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e a l o n g F a r r i n g t o n H i g h w a y i n L e e w a r d O a h u

.

T o c a p t u r e f u l l v a l u e o f t h e f e d e r

a l i n v e s t m e n t t a x c r

e d i t f o r H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c ’ s c u s t o m e r

s , t h e p r o j e c t i s p r o p o s e d t o b e i n s e r

v i c e b y t h e e n d o f 2 0 1 6

. B e g i n n i n g i n 2 0 1 7

, t h e t a x c r e d i t s a r e d u e t o d e c l i n e f r

o m 3 0 % t o 1 0 %

.

F O L L O W U S F O R T H E L A T E S T O u r o f

f i c e s w i l l b e c l o s e d o n T h u r

s d a y , N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 4
, i n o b s e r

v a n c e o f T h a n k s g i v i n g D a y

. V i e w h o l i d a y s c h e d u l e >

H E I | H a w a i i E l e c t r i c L i g h t C o m p a n y | M a u i E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y | W e s t O a h u A i r Q u a l i t y

P R I V A C Y P O L I C Y | T E R M S O F U S E

C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 3 H a w a i i a n E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y , I n c

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 N e w s > S M E C O A n n o u n c e s S e c o n d S o l a r P r o j e c t

h t t p : / / w w w

. s m e c o

. c o o p

/ n e w s / 1 4

­ 0 4

­ 1 6

/ S M E C O

_

A n n o u n c e s

_

S e c o n d

_ S o l a r

_ P r o

j e c t

. a s p x 1 / 2 C u s t o m e r C h o i c e C a r

e e r s C o n t a c t U s N e w s l e t t e r E n e r g y S u p p l i e r s V e n d o r s

R e p o r t O u t a g e 1

­ 8 7 7

­ 7 4 7

­ 6 3 2 6 ( 1

­ 8 7 7

­ 7 4

­ S M E C O ) C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e 1

­ 8 8 8

­ 4 4 0

­ 3 3 1 1 G o

Y o u r C o o p e r a t i v e
Y o u r A c c o u n t

Y o u r E n e r g y
Y o u r S a f e t y
O u r S e r v i c e s
O u r C o m m u n i t y
N e w s

F o r Y o u r B u s i n e s s
O u t a g e s

V i d e o s 7



# S M E C O N e w s

F i n d u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t y o u r e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e a n d k e e p u p t o d a t e

o n e v e n t s a t S M E C O

.

A l l n e w s 

### S M E C O A n n o u n c e s S e c o n d S o l a r P r o j e c t

A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 1 4

S o u t h e r n M a r y l a n d E l e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i v e ( S M E C O ) h a s e n t e r e d i n t o a p o w e r p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t w i t h a n a f

f i l i a t e o f j u w i s o l a r I n c

. ( J S I ) t o d e v e l o p , d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t t h e 1 0

. 0

­ m e g a w a t t ( M W ) R o c k f i s h S o l a r f a c i l i t y

. J S I w i l l c o n s t r u c t a n d o p e r a t e t h e f a c i l i t y t h r o u g h a w h o l l y

­ o w n e d

s u b s i d i a r y , a n d S M E C O w i l l p u r c h a s e a l l g e n e r a t e d e n e r g y , c a p a c i t y , a n d s o l a r r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y c r e d i t s f o r t h e n e x t 2 0 y e a r s

.

P e n d i n g a p p r o v a l f r o m t h e M a r y l a n d P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n a n d
l o c a l p e r m i t t i n g , t h e s o l a r f a r m i s p l a n n e d t o b e a 1 0

­ M W s o l a r p h o t o v o l t a i c f a c i l i t y t o b e l o c a t e d o n 8 0 a c r e s i n C h a r l e s C o u n t y

. J S I
p l a n s t o e m p l o y t h e u s e o f s i n g l e a x i s t r a c k i n g t e c h n o l o g y , a n d
p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n s c a l l f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 1

, 0 0 0 m o d u l e s o f s o l a r p a n e l s

. T h e p r o j e c t i s s c h e d u l e d t o r e a c h f u l l c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n a s

e a r l y a s t h e e n d o f t h i s y e a r a n d i s e x p e c t e d t o g e n e r a t e r o u g h l y 2 1

, 0 0 0

m e g a w a t t

­ h o u r s ( M W h ) d u r i n g i t s f i r s t y e a r o f o p e r a t i o n : e n o u g h t o p o w e r a b o u t 1

, 3 0 0 h o m e s a n n u a l l y

. A n a v e r a g e S M E C O h o u s e h o l d

u s e s 1

, 3 0 0 k i l o w a t t

­ h o u r s ( k W h ) a m o n t h a n d 1 5

, 6 0 0 k W h p e r y e a r

.

S M E C O w o r k e d w i t h t h e N a t i o n a l R e n e w a b l e s C o o p e r a t i v e O r g a n i z a t i o n ( N R C O ) t o d e v e l o p a r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l s a n d e v a l u a t e d a b o u t 3 0

s u b m i s s i o n s b e f o r e s e l e c t i n g J S I

. J S I i s h e a d q u a r t e r e d i n B o u l d e r , C o l o r a d o

. A c c o r d i n g t o A u s t i n J

. S l a t e r , J r

. , S M E C O ’ s p r e s i d e n t a n d C E O

, “ B y w o r k i n g w i t h N R C O a n d J S I

, w e a r e d e v e l o p i n g a p r o j e c t t h a t

w i l l p r o v i d e r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y r i g h t h e r e i n o u r s e r v i c e a r e a , h e l p i n g u s t o m e e t o u r r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d t o a v o i d c o s t l y t r a n s m i s s i o n f e e s

. ” H e a d d e d

, “ O u r c u s t o m e r

­ m e m b e r s w i l l b e g l a d t o k n o w t h a t t h e

c o s t o f t h e e n e r g y p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s o l a r p r o j e c t i s v e r y r e a s o n a b l e a n d

w i l l h a v e a p o s i t i v e e f

f e c t o n c u s t o m e r r a t e s

. ”

“ W e a r e i n c r e d i b l y e x c i t e d t o b e w o r k i n g w i t h S M E C O a n d N R C O t o p r o v i d e c l e a n , r e l i a b l e s o l a r p o w e r t o S M E C O c u s t o m e r s i n a c o s t

e f f e c t i v e m a n n e r , ” s a i d M i c h a e l M a r t i n , C E O o f J S I

. “ W e a l s o e a g e r l y

a n t i c i p a t e b r e a k i n g g r o u n d a n d c o m p l e t i n g o u r f i r s t u t i l i t y

­ s c a l e s o l a r p r o j e c t i n t h e s t a t e o f M a r y l a n d

. ”

T h i s p r o j e c t i s t h e s e c o n d s o l a r p r o j e c t a n d f o u r t h r e n e w a b l e p r o j e c t t h a t N R C O h a s f a c i l i t a t e d f o r S M E C O

. S M E C O d e v e l o p e d a 5

. 5

­ M W s o l a r f a r m i n H u g h e s v i l l e w h i c h h a s p r o d u c e d m o r e t h a n 1 0 m i l l i o n k W h s i n c e N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2

. T h e n e w s o l a r p r o j e c t i s e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e n e a r l y t w i c e a s m u c h e n e r g y a s t h e H u g h e s v i l l e f a c i l i t y

. S M E C O a l s o p u r c h a s e s t h e e n e r g y a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t r i b u t e s o f t w o w i n d p r o j e c t s l o c a t e d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a

.

P u r c h a s i n g s o l a r e n e r g y i s o n e w a y S M E C O w o r k s t o f u l f i l l i t s r e n e w a b l e p o r t f o l i o o b l i g a t i o n , a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e s t a t e , a t t h e l o w e s t c o s t s t o i t s

m e m b e r s

. U t i l i t i e s a r e o b l i g a t e d t o p u r c h a s e

. 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r l o a d f r o m 

### L o g I n o r P a y M y B i l l

D o w n l o a d t h e S M E C O 2 4 / 7 m o b i l e

a p p t o r e p o r t y o u r o u t a g e a n d p a y y o u r b i l l f r o m y o u r s m a r t p h o n e

.
S i g n u p f o r A u t o P a y o n l i n e t o

a u t o m a t i c a l l y p a y y o u r b i l l e a c h m o n t h f r o m y o u r b a n k a c c o u n t o r c r e d i t c a r d

.
G e t i n s t a n t r e b a t e s o f u p t o $ 2

. 2 5 p e r b u l b o n c o m p a c t f l u o r e s c e n t l i g h t b u l b s ( C F L s ) a n d u p t o $ 8 o n l i g h t

e m i t t i n g d i o d e s ( L E D s ) !

$ 1

, $ 5

, o r $ 1 0 a m o n t h c o u l d h e l p y o u r

n e i g h b o r k e e p t h e l i g h t s o n

. S i g n u p f o r M e m b e r s H e l p i n g M e m b e r s

.

R e p o r t a n O u t a g e

S a v e E n e r g y , S a v e M o n e y

A p p l y f o r C o l l e g e A i d

B e w a r e o f S c a m s S h a r e S h a r e S h a r e S h a r e S h a r e S h a r e M o r e

B i l l I n s e r t s
B u i l d i n g f o r R e l i a b l e S e r v i c e
C o o p e r a t i v e R e v i e w
P r e s s R e l e a s e s
R e q u e s t P u b l i c a t i o n s
S t a y I n f o r m e d

A w a r d s a n d C o m m e n d a t i o n s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 N e w s > S M E C O A n n o u n c e s S e c o n d S o l a r P r o j e c t

h t t p : / / w w w

. s m e c o

. c o o p

/ n e w s / 1 4

­ 0 4

­ 1 6

/ S M E C O

_

A n n o u n c e s

_

S e c o n d

_ S o l a r

_ P r o

j e c t

. a s p x 2 / 2 s o l a r e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s i n 2 0 1 5 ; t h a t p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e s e a c h y e a r

u n t i l r e a c h i n g t w o p e r c e n t i n 2 0 2 0

. U t i l i t i e s t h a t d o n ’ t p u r c h a s e t h e

r e q u i r e d a m o u n t o f s o l a r e n e r g y m u s t p a y a p e n a l t y

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 P o w e r L i n e s » S e a t

t l e C i t y L i g h t S e e k s P r o p o s a l s o n R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y

h t t p : / / p o w e r l i n e s

. s e a t

t l e

. g o v / 2 0 1 2 / 0 9 / 1 0 / s e a t t l e

­ c i t y

­ l i g h t

­ s e e k s

­ p r o p o s a l s

­ o n

­ r e n e w a b l e

­ e n e r g y / 1 / 2 

### S e a r c h P o w e r L i n e s

G o



### C a t e g o r i e s

P o w e r L i n e s ( R S S )



### S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2

M T W T F S S

« A u g O c t »

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0



### C i t y L i n k S e a t t l e

A r t B e a t

A t Y o u r S e r

v i c e
B o t t o m L i n e
B u i l d i n g C o n n e c t i o n s
C e n t e r S p o t l i g h t

F i r e L i n e
M a y o r M u r r a y ' s B l o g
O n t h e M o v e
P a r k w a y s
P o w e r L i n e s
S P D B l o t t e r
T h e S c o o p « P r e v i o u s p o s t | P o w e r L i n e s H o m e P a g e | N e x t p o s t »



## S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t S e e k s P r o p o s a l s o n R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y

S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t i s s u e d a r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l s t o d a y f

o r u p t o 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 m e g a w a t t

­ h o u r s o f

r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y o r r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y c r e d i t s p e r y e a r , b e g i n n i n g i n 2 0 2 0

.

S o u r c e p r o j e c t s m u s t q u a l i f

y a s e l i g i b l e a c c o r d i n g t o W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e ’ s r e n e w a b l e p o r t f o l i o

s t a n d a r d
, a p p r o v e d b y v o t e r s i n 2 0 0 6 a s I n i t i a t i v e 9 3 7

. C i t y L i g h t w i l l r e q u i r e a m i n i m u m

o u t p u t g u a r a n t e e a n d c r e d i t a s s u r a n c e s

. T h e u t i l i t y w i l l c o n s i d e r p r o p o s a l s f o r e q u i t y

o w n e r s h i p

.

U n d e r t h e r e q u e s t f

o r p r o p o s a l s , C i t y L i g h t w i l l c o n s i d e r a b r o a d r a n g e o f p r o p o s a l s , t e c h n o l o g i e s , a n d c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e m e n t s

. T h e u t i l i t y w i l l r e q u i r e p o t e n t i a l p r o v i d e r s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e y h a v e t h e c r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s t o d e v e l o p t h e p r o j e c t ( s ) o f f e r e d a n d d e l i v e r t h e

e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y a n d / o r r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y c r e d i t s o v e r t h e i n d i c a t e d c o n t r a c t l e n g t h

.

A n y p a r t y s u b m i t t i n g a p r o p o s a l m u s t b e t h e o w n e r o f t h e e l i g i b l e r e s o u r c e o r r e n e w a b l e

e n e r g y c r e d i t s , o r h a v e w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m t h e o w n e r t o s u b m i t a p r o p o s a l

.

C i t y L i g h t p r e f

e r s b a s e l o a d o r d i s p a t c h a b l e r e s o u r c e s t o c o m p l e m e n t t h e e x i s t i n g s u p p l y

r e s o u r c e s t h a t a r e p r e d o m i n a t e l y h y d r o e l e c t r i c

.

S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t i s t h e 1 0 t h l a r g e s t p u b l i c e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. I t h a s s o m e

o f t h e l o w e s t c o s t c u s t o m e r r a t e s o f a n y u r b a n u t i l i t y , p r o v i d i n g r e l i a b l e , r e n e w a b l e a n d

e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e p o w e r t o n e a r l y 1 m i l l i o n S e a t t l e a r e a r e s i d e n t s

. C i t y L i g h t h a s b e e n g r e e n h o u s e g a s n e u t r a l s i n c e 2 0 0 5 , t h e f i r s t e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y i n t h e n a t i o n t o a c h i e v e t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n

.

F o r m o r e i n f

o r m a t i o n o n s u b m i t t i n g a p r o p o s a l
, c o n t a c t R o b e r t W

. C r o m w e l l
, J r

. , d i r e c t o r o f

p o w e r c o n t r a c t s a n d r e s o u r c e a c q u i s i t i o n , a t r o b e r t

. c r o m w e l l @ s e a t t l e . g o v , b y p h o n e a t ( 2 0 6 ) 6 8 4

­ 3 8 5 6 o r b y F A X a t ( 2 0 6 ) 3 8 6

­ 4 5 5 5

.

P o s t e d : S e p t e m b e r 1 0 t h , 2 0 1 2 u n d e r P o w e r L i n e s . T a g s : I

­ 9 3 7 , r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y , r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l s , S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t

« P r e v i o u s p o s t | P o w e r L i n e s H o m e P a g e | N e x t p o s t » D e p a r t m e n t s | S e r v i c e s | S t a f f D i r e c t o r y

1 L i k e1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 P o w e r L i n e s » S e a t

t l e C i t y L i g h t S e e k s P r o p o s a l s o n R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y

h t t p : / / p o w e r l i n e s

. s e a t

t l e

. g o v / 2 0 1 2 / 0 9 / 1 0 / s e a t t l e

­ c i t y

­ l i g h t

­ s e e k s

­ p r o p o s a l s

­ o n

­ r e n e w a b l e

­ e n e r g y / 2 / 2 V i s i t t h e o f f i c i a l C i t y o f S e a t t l e w e b s i t e , w w w

. s e a t t l e

. g o v © 2 0 1 4 C i t y o f S e a t t l e ­ P o w e r L i n e s ­ E n t r i e s ( R S S )

­ T e c h n i c a l I s s u e s ?

­ P r i v a c y & S e c u r i t y P o l i c y ­ L o g i n
P o w e r e d b y W o r d P r e s s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S C E & G I s s u e s R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s t o S u p p l y S o l a r E n e r g y o n i t s S y s t e m

h t t p s : / / w w w

. s c e g

. c o m / a b o u t

­ u s / n e w s r o o m / 2 0 1 4

/ 0 8 / 2 1 / s c e

­ g

­ i s s u e s

­ r e q u e s t

­ f o r

­ p r o p o s a l s

­ t o

­ s u p p l y

­ s o l a r

­ e n e r g y

­ o n

­ i t s

­ s y s t e m 1 / 2 B a c k t o N e w s r o o m



## S C E & G I s s u e s R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s t o S u p p l y S o l a r E n e r g y o n i t s S y s t e m

F i r s t S o l a r F a r m s t o b e l o c a t e d i n C

h a r l e s t o n a n d C a y c e b y E a r l y 2 0 1 5

C a y c e , S

. C

. ( A u g u s t 2 1

, 2 0 1 4 )

– T o d a y S C E & G t o o k a n o t h e r s t e p f o r w a r d i n a d v a n c i n g i t s r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y

c o m m i t m e n t b y i s s u i n g a R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s ( R F P ) f o r t h e f i r s t t w o s o l a r f a r m s t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d o n i t s

s y s t e m

. T h e R F P c a l l s f o r b i d d e r s t o p r o v i d e s o l a r p o w e r t o t h e u t i l i t y t h r o u g h p u r c h a s e d p o w e r a g r e e m e n t s w i t h
t h e s e l e c t e d s o l a r d e v e l o p e r ( s )

. S C E & G i n t e n d s t o w o r k w i t h s o l a r d e v e l o p e r s t o l o c a t e t h e s o l a r f a r m s o n

c o m p a n y

- o w n e d p r o p e r t y i n N o r t h C h a r l e s t o n a n d C a y c e

.

T h e N o r t h C h a r l e s t o n i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l b e b u i l t o n t h e 3

- a c r e s i t e o f t h e f o r m e r L e e d s A v e n u e G a s O p e r a t i o n s f a c i l i t y o f f I

- 5 2 6 a n d w i l l h a v e a g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y b e t w e e n 3 0 0

– 5 0 0 k i l o w a t t s

. T h e C a y c e p r o j e c t
, l o c a t e d

a d j a c e n t t o S C A N A ’ s c o r p o r a t e h e a d q u a r t e r s o f f I

- 7 7

, w i l l b e l a r g e r i n s c o p e w i t h a g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y b e t w e e n 3

– 4 m e g a w a t t s o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 a c r e s

. C o m p l e t i o n o f b o t h s i t e s i s e x p e c t e d i n 2 0 1 5

.

“ A f t e r m u c h c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g w e a r e e x c i t e d t o m o v e f o r w a r d w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f o u r f i r s t s o l a r f a r m s , ” s a i d K e v i n M a r s h

, c h a i r m a n a n d C E O o f S C A N A

, S C E & G ’ s p a r e n t c o m p a n y

. “ S o l a r i s a n i n t e g r a l c o m p o n e n t o f o u r b a l a n c e d g e n e r a t i o n p o r t f o l i o a s w e s t r i v e t o r e a c h a d i v e r s i f i e d m i x o f 3 0 % n a t u r a l g a s , 3 0 % n u c l e a r , 3 0 %

s c r u b b e d c o a l a n d 1 0 % h y d r o a n d o t h e r r e n e w a b l e s o v e r t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s

. ”

I n l a t e 2 0 1 3

, S C E & G a n n o u n c e d a n e w r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y t e a m a n d c o m m i t t e d t o i n s t a l l i n g 2 0 m e g a w a t t s o f s o l a r

e n e r g y o n i t s s y s t e m b y 2 0 2 0

. I n i t i a l p l a n s w e r e t o b u i l d o n a s i t e n e a r L a k e M u r r a y

. T h a t s i t e i s s t i l l o n t h e t a b l e b u t m a y b e d e v e l o p e d a t a l a t e r d a t e

.

O v e r t h e p a s t s e v e r a l m o n t h s , S C E & G h a s w o r k e d t o g e t h e r w i t h s o l a r s t a k e h o l d e r s f r o m a c r o s s t h e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n g r o u p s a n d o t h e r u t i l i t i e s , t o d e v e l o p c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o n s e n s u s l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t

e s t a b l i s h e s e q u i t a b l e n e t m e t e r i n g r u l e s , i n t r o d u c e s d i s t r i b u t e d e n e r g y p r o g r a m s a n d a l l o w s c u s t o m e r s g r e a t e r

a c c e s s t o s o l a r l e a s i n g

. I n J u n e , t h e l a n d m a r k D i s t r i b u t e d E n e r g y R e s o u r c e P r o g r a m A c t w a s s i g n e d i n t o l a w b y G o v e r n o r N i k k i H a l e y , o p e n i n g t h e d o o r f o r i n c r e a s e d s o l a r i n s t a l l a t i o n s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e

. T h e n e w l e g i s l a t i o n i n c l u d e s a p r o v i s i o n t h a t w o u l d a l l o w S C E & G t o a d d b o t h u t i l i t y

- s c a l e a n d c u s t o m e r i n s t a l l e d s o l a r e n e r g y t o i t s

s y s t e m i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e 2 0 m e g a w a t t s a n n o u n c e d l a s t y e a r

.

“ W e a r e p r o u d t o h a v e b e e n p a r t o f t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e n e w l e g i s l a t i o n , w h i c h w i l l
p r o v i d e a s t r o n g f o u n d a t i o n f o r i n t e g r a t i n g m o r e r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y i n S o u t h C a r o l i n a b e n e f i t t i n g u s a l l

, ” s a i d M a r c u s H a r r i s , g e n e r a l m a n a g e r o f r e n e w a b l e p r o d u c t s a n d s e r v i c e s f o r S C E & G

. “ T h e s e f i r s t t w o s o l a r f a r m s w i l l d e m o n s t r a t e o u r c o m m i t m e n t t o a d v a n c i n g s o l a r e n e r g y i n t h e s t a t e

. ”

T h e R F P f o r t h e n e w s o l a r f a r m s o u t l i n e s t e c h n i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s o l a r d e v e l o p e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e s i g n , i n s t a l l a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e s o l a r p h o t o v o l t a i c d i s t r i b u t e d g e n e r a t i o n s y s t e m s

. T o a c c e s s t h e f u l l R F P

, b i d d e r s m u s t b e r e g i s t e r e d a t w w w

. P o w e r a d v o c a t e

. c o m , t h e w e b

- b a s e d p l a t f o r m t h a t w i l l b e u t i l i z e d b y S C E & G t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e R F P

.

F o r b i d d e r s w i t h a n e x i s t i n g P o w e r A d v o c a t e S u p p l i e r A c c o u n t : P l e a s e s h a r e y o u r i n t e r e s t i n r e v i e w i n g t h e R F P d o c u m e n t s v i a a n e

- m a i l t o S C E G S o l a r R F P @ s c a n a

. c o m ( m u s t i n c l u d e f u l l c o m p a n y n a m e , c o n t a c t n a m e , a n d e

- m a i l a d d r e s s )

. A n i n v i t a t i o n t o t h e R F P e v e n t i n P o w e r A d v o c a t e w i l l b e f o r w a r d e d f o l l o w i n g r e c e i p t o f y o u r e

- m a i l

.

F o r b i d d e r s w h o r e q u i r e a n e w P o w e r A d v o c a t e S u p p l i e r A c c o u n t : V i s i t w w w

. P o w e r a d v o c a t e

. c o m , c l i c k o n t h e “ R e g i s t r a t i o n ” l i n k a t t h e t o p o f t h e s c r e e n , a n d f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o c o m p l e t e r e g i s t r a t i o n a s a S u p p l i e r

. O n c e t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d b y 

### M e d i a C o n t a c t s

C o n t a c t P u b l i c A f f a i r s 1

- 8 0 0

- 5 6 2

- 9 3 0 8

N e w S o l a r F a r m s R F P ( P D F

, 1 9 9 K B )

R F P R e s p o n s e P a c k a g e ( P D F

, 1 6 1 K B ) c 

# N e w s r o o m

P r e s s r e l e a s e s , p h o t o s , v i d e o s a n d o t h e r r e s o u r c e s f o r j o u r n a l i s t s

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S C E & G I s s u e s R e q u e s t f o r P r o p o s a l s t o S u p p l y S o l a r E n e r g y o n i t s S y s t e m

h t t p s : / / w w w

. s c e g

. c o m / a b o u t

­ u s / n e w s r o o m / 2 0 1 4

/ 0 8 / 2 1 / s c e

­ g

­ i s s u e s

­ r e q u e s t

­ f o r

­ p r o p o s a l s

­ t o

­ s u p p l y

­ s o l a r

­ e n e r g y

­ o n

­ i t s

­ s y s t e m 2 / 2 P o w e r A d v o c a t e , f o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a b o v e t o r e q u e s t a c c e s s t o t h e R F P

.

A l l p r o p o s a l s m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d b y 5 p

. m

. O c t o b e r 3

, 2 0 1 4

. C o n t r a c t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e f i n a l i z e d b y t h e e n d o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4

.

F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t S C E & G ’ s r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y i n i t i a t i v e s v i s i t w w w

. s c e g

. c o m / s o l a r

.

A b o u t S C E & G S o u t h C a r o l i n a E l e c t r i c & G a s C o m p a n y i s a r e g u l a t e d p u b l i c u t i l i t y e n g a g e d i n t h e g e n e r a t i o n , t r a n s m i s s i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d s a l e o f e l e c t r i c i t y t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 8 4

, 0 0 0 c u s t o m e r s i n 2 4 c o u n t i e s i n t h e c e n t r a l

, s o u t h e r n a n d

s o u t h w e s t e r n p o r t i o n s o f S o u t h C a r o l i n a

. T h e c o m p a n y a l s o p r o v i d e s n a t u r a l g a s s e r v i c e t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 3 2

, 0 0 0 c u s t o m e r s i n 3 8 c o u n t i e s i n t h e s t a t e

.

H o w c a n w e h e l p y o u ? 

# 1

- 8 0 0

- 2 5 1

- 7 2 3 4 A v a i l a b l e 2 4 / 7

j M o b i l e S i t e c A b o u t S o u t h C a r o l i n a E l e c t r i c & G a s c C a r e e r s c N e w s c E s p a ñ o l c C o n t a c t

S C E & G i s a s u b s i d i a r y o f S C A N A C o r p o r a t i o n

. © 2 0 0 0

- 2 0 1 4 S C A N A C o r p o r a t i o n T e r m s a n d C o n d i t i o n s P r i v a c y P o l i c y B e t t e r B u s i n e s s B u r e a u1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S t a n d a r d N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g ( N E M S ) | P G & E

h t t p : / / w w w

. p g e

. c o m / e n / m y b u s i n e s s / s e r v i c e s / n o n p g e / g e n e r a t e o

w n p o w e r / n e t e n e r g y m e t e r i n g / s t a n d a r d n e m / i n d e x

. p a g e 1 / 4 Y o u r B i l l & A c c o u n t S a v e M o n e y R a t e s S e r v i c e s



## S t a n d a r d N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g ( N E M S )

N E M S ( p r e v i o u s l y S t a n d a r d E

­ N E T ) i s a n e t

e n e r g y m e t e r i n g p r o g r a m f o r a l l c u s t o m e r s

w i t h e l i g i b l e s o l a r , w i n d o r h y b r i d ( s o l a r a n d

w i n d ) g e n e r a t o r s t h a t a r e l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o 3 0 k i l o w a t t s i n s i z e

.

C i t y a n d C o u n t y o f S a n F r a n c i s c o ( “ C C S F ” ) o w n e d g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s

s e e k i n g S c h e d u l e N E M C C S F a n d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e D e m a n d R e s p o n s e P r o g r a m s b e l o w a r e n o t e l i g i b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n N E M :

P e a k D a y P r i c i n g ( P D P )

S c h e d u l e d L o a d R e d u c t i o n P r

o g r a m ( S L R P )

S m a r t R a t e

N O T E : C u s t o m e r s m u s t n o t o p e r a t e a n y g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t y i n p a r a l l e l

w i t h P a c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y ’ s ( P G & E ) d i s t r i b u t i o n f a c i l i t i e s

u n t i l t h e y r e c e i v e w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m P G & E

, a s i s r e q u i r e d i n E l e c t r i c R u l e 2 1

. U n a u t h o r i z e d o p e r a t i o n m a y r e s u l t i n p e r s o n a l i n j u r y , e q u i p m e n t d a m a g e a n d / o r p r o p e r t y d a m a g e f o r w h i c h t h e c u s t o m e r

m a y b e l i a b l e

.



### P r e p a r e f o r Y o u r P r o j e c t

P G & E ’ s E l e c t r i c G e n e r a t i o n I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n D e p a r t m e n t c a n h e l p y o u

u n d e r s t a n d t h e s t e p s y o u n e e d t o t a k e s e t u p y o u r n e t e n e r g y m e t e r i n g i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n f o r s o l a r a n d / o r w i n d e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s

.

T h i s w e b s i t e p r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e s t o p r e p a r e f o r p r o j e c t

, i n c l u d i n g :

W e b i n a r N E M W e l c o m e L e t t e r

N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g a n d T r

a c k i n g

R a t e s a n d R u l e s

D i s t r i b u t i o n I n t e r

c o n n e c t i o n H a n d b o o k

P G & E s G r e e n b o o k

N E M T a r i f f

R u l e 2 1

C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n ( C E C )

C E C L i s t s o f E l i g i b l e R e n e w a b l e E q u i p m e n t

C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i s s i o n ( C P U C )

U

. S

. D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y ( D O E )

D O E E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y a n d R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y 

### A d d i t i o n a l I n f o

R e l a t e d L i n k s B u i l d i n g & R e n o v a t i o n S e r v i c e s

P r o p e r t y M a n a g e r s & O w n e r s

M a i n t e n a n c e & R e p a i r

E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t

B r o c h u r e s a n d F o r m s

S m a r t M e t e r TM

W o r k s h o p s & T r a i n i n g

N o n

­ P G & E E n e r g y

F i r s t R e s p o n d e r s

R e c e n t I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n N e w s

0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 4

0 3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 T r a n s i t i o n U p d a t e : T h e c u s t o m e r

­ s i g n e d 7 9

­ 1 1 0 1 f o r m w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e a c c e p t e d i f a n d o n l y i f i t i s

a c c o m p a n i e d b y m a c h i n e

­ r e a d a b l e 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A a n d 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B f o r m s

. T h i s w i l l b e a l l o w a b l e u n t i l 6 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 4

. B e g i n n i n g 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 4 P G & E w i l l n o l o n g e r

a c c e p t t h e o l d ( 7 9

­ 1 1 0 1 ) f o r m

.

T h e n e w f o r m s ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A a n d 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B ) p o s t e d t o t h i s w e b s i t e c a n b e u s e d i m m e d i a t e l y

. H o w e v e r p l e a s e n o t e , e f f e c t i v e 5 / 1 / 2 0 1 4

, P G & E w i l l r e q u i r e i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n r e q u e s t s t o u t i l i z e t h e n e w f o r m s : A g r e e m e n t & C u s t o m e r A u t h o r i z a t i o n ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A ) ( P D F

, 2 1 4 K B ) a n d A p p l i c a t i o n ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B ) ( P D F

, 2 0 4 K B ) a n d d i s c o n t i n u e t h e u s e o f t h e o l d f o r m ( 7 9

­ 1 1 0 1 )

.

0 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 L o a d A g g r e g a t i o n A p p r o v e d U n d e r t h e N E M T a r i f f ( P D F

, 2 5 7 K B )

.

1 2 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 3 N e w s t r e a m l i n e d S t a n d a r d I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n A g r e e m e n t a n d A u t h o r i z a t i o n F o r m ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A ) a n d S t a n d a r d I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n F o r m ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B ) d e v e l o p e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C P U C

. F o r M y B u s i n e s s A b o u t C o n t a c t U s S a f e t y E n g l i s h G o L o g i n

S e a r c h1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S t a n d a r d N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g ( N E M S ) | P G & E

h t t p : / / w w w

. p g e

. c o m / e n / m y b u s i n e s s / s e r v i c e s / n o n p g e / g e n e r a t e o

w n p o w e r / n e t e n e r g y m e t e r i n g / s t a n d a r d n e m / i n d e x

. p a g e 2 / 4 V i d e o ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 m i n u t e s i n d u r

a t i o n ) t h a t w i l l g i v e y o u a n

o v e r v i e w t o t h e r e v i s e d p r o c e s s a n d f o r m s

. O l d f o r m s w i l l n o l o n g e r b e a c c e p t e d p o s t 5 / 1 / 1 4

. V i e w t h e W e b i n a r »
G e t t i n g S t a r t e d G u i d e s
S t a n d a r d N E M O v e r v i e w

– S y s t e m B u i l t a n d P a s s e d L o c a l J u r i s d i c t i o n ' s F i n a l I n s p e c t i o n ( P D F

, 1 4 1 K B )

S t a n d a r d N E M O v e r v i e w

– S y s t e m N o t Y e t B u i l t ( P D F

, 1 4 3 K B )

S u b m i t t a l P a t h G u i d e

– S u m m a r

y o f R e q u i r e d D o c u m e n t s ( P D F

, 5 0 K B )

H o w t o F i l l O u t F o r m 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A ( A g r

e e m e n t & C u s t o m e r A u t h o r i z a t i o n ) ( P D F

, 1 7 3 K B )

H o w t o F i l l O u t F o r m 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B ( A p p l i c a t i o n ) ( P D F

, 1 7 0 K B )

H o w t o S a v e a n d S u b m i t 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A & B

– T e c h n i c a l D i f f i c u l t i e s ? F o l l o w t h i s G u i d e ( P D F

, 6 7 9 K B )

O f c o u r s e , y o u m a y h a v e q u e s t i o n s

. O u r F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s ( P D F

, 1 0 2 K B ) d o c u m e n t c o v e r s a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r y o u t o

e f f e c t i v e l y m a n a g e y o u r p r o

j e c t

.



### H o w D o I A p p l y ?

A l l o f t h e b e l o w l i s t e d c o m p o n e n t s , c o r r e c t l y f i l l e d o u t

, c o n s t i t u t e s a

c o m p l e t e S t a n d a r d N E M i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n r e q u e s t

.

E l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l l i n g o u t t h e r e q u e s t e d i t e m s i d e n t i f i e d b e l o w u s i n g a

c o m p u t e r w i l l g r e a t l y s t r e a m l i n e t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n p r o c e s s a n d a l l o w f o r q u i c k e r t u r n a r o u n d

.

I f P D F f i l l a b l e f o r m s a r e e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l l e d o u t u s i n g a c o m p u t e r , p l e a s e n o t e t h a t w h e n s u b m i t t i n g t h e A g r e e m e n t a n d C u s t o m e r A u t h o r i z a t i o n ( 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A ) f o r m , y o u w i l l n e e d t o s u b m i t b o t h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :

1

. T h e u n s i g n e d c o p y ( f

o r m f i l l e d o u t i n i t s o r i g i n a l P D F f i l l a b l e f

o r m a t )

2

. T h e s a m e f o r m w i t h p r o o f o f s i g n a t u r e ( l o c k e d f

o r m f r o m q u a l i f i e d t h i r d

p a r t y e

­ s i g n a t u r e v e n d o r o r s c a n n e d P D F o f w e t s i g n a t u r e )

T h e f i r s t d o c u m e n t a l l o w s P G & E s y s t e m s t o r e a d t h e f o r m e l i m i n a t i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r e r r o r s a n d r e w o r k

.

I t e m R e q u e s t e d W h y I t I s R e q u e s t e d

R E Q U I R E D
I N F O R M A T I O N

1

. A g r e e m e n t

a n d C u s t o m e r A u t h o r i z a t i o n F o r m 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 A ( P D F

, 2 1 4 K B ) P r o v i d e s i m p o r t a n t c u s t o m e r , c o n t r a c t o r ,

s y s t e m a n d r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o j e c t

. S i n g l e f o r m t h a t a l l o w s t h e c u s t o m e r t o

a u t h o r i z e t h e i r c o n t r a c t o r o r a n o t h e r T h i r d P a r t y t o a c t o n i t s b e h a l f ( i

. e

. , f i l l o u t A p p l i c a t i o n f o r N E M I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n , r e c e i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n

r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g a c o p y o f t h e P e r m i s s i o n t o O p e r a t e

n o t i c e )

.

2

. A p p l i c a t i o n f o r N E M I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n F o r m 7 9

­ 1 1 5 1 B ( P D F

, 2 0 4 K B ) P r o v i d e s i m p o r t a n t g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t y

i n f o r m a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n o f g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s

a n d g u i d e l i n e s f o r a d d i t i o n a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o

s u b m i t a c o m p l e t e a p p l i c a t i o n

. A p p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d e s t h e b a s i c s i n g l e

­ l i n e d i a g r a m

.

3

. F i n a l B u i l d i n g P e r m i t / I n s p e c t i o n C e r t i f i c a t e C o p y o f f i n a l b u i l d i n g p e r m i t / i n s p e c t i o n

c e r t i f i c a t e t h a t a l l o w s P G & E t o k n o w t h a t t h e p r o j e c t h a s b e e n f i n i s h e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y l o c a l b u i l d i n g a u t h o r i t y

. N o t e t h a t w e o n l y r e q u i r e t h e f i n a l s i g n e d o f f p e r m i t s h o w i n g t h a t t h e

c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s r e c e i v e d f i n a l a p p r o v a l b y t h e1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S t a n d a r d N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g ( N E M S ) | P G & E

h t t p : / / w w w

. p g e

. c o m / e n / m y b u s i n e s s / s e r v i c e s / n o n p g e / g e n e r a t e o

w n p o w e r / n e t e n e r g y m e t e r i n g / s t a n d a r d n e m / i n d e x

. p a g e 3 / 4 P l e a s e s u b m i t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d o c u m e n t s v i a o n e o f t h e
m e t h o d s o u t l i n e d b e l o w :

1

. E m a i l : g e n @ p g e

. c o m

* T h i s i s t h e p r e f e r r e d m e t h o d a s t h i s a l l o w s P G & E t

o s t r e a m l i n e t h e
p r o c e s s a n d a t t e n d t o y o u r r e q u e s t m o r e q u i c k l y

.

O R

2

. M a i l h a r d c o p i e s o f a l l a p p r o p r i a t e d o c u m e n t s t o :
P a c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y
A t t e n t i o n : E l e c t r i c G e n e r a t i o n I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n
M a i l C o d e N 7 L

2 4 5 M a r k e t S t

. S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5

A t t e n t i o n : P G & E m a y n o t b e a b l e t o i n t e r c o n n e c t y o u r g e n e r a t o r i f i t i s l o c a t e d i n c e r t a i n a r e a s o f S a n F r a n c i s c o o r O a k l a n d

. P l e a s e r e a d o u r

n o t i c e a b o u t S e c o n d a r

y N e t w o r k s

.



### W h o s h o u l d I c o n t a c t f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ?

F o r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t P G & E ’ s r e n e w a b l e p r o g r a m s a n d N E M a c c o u n t s , p l e a s e v i e w t h e f o l l o w i n g w e b p a g e f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s :

w w w

. p g e

. c o m / s o l a r o r c o n t a c t t h e G e n H o t l i n e a t ( 4 1 5 ) 9 7 2

­ 5 6 7 6

.

F o r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n , y o u c a n e m a i l u s a t
g e n @ p g e

. c o m o r c o n t a c t t h e G e n H o t l i n e a t ( 4 1 5 ) 9 7 2

­ 5 6 7 6

.

l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s

.
A D D I T I O N A L
I N F O R M A T I O N I F
A P P L I C A B L E

4

. N E M L o a d A g g r e g a t i o n A p p e n d i x F o r m 7 9

­ 1 1 5 3

5

. C u s t o m S i n g l e

­ L i n e D i a g r a m A p p l i c a b l e o n l y t o e l i g i b l e c u s t o m e r s a p p l y i n g

u n d e r N E M A g g r e g a t i o n

. T h e F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s ( P D F

, 4 4 0 K B ) d o c u m e n t c o v e r s

a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r y o u t o e f f e c t i v e l y

m a n a g e y o u r N E M A g g r e g a t i o n p r o

j e c t

.

S i m p l e d i a g r a m f o r t e c h n i c a l r e v i e w

. H e r e i s a n

e x a m p l e

.

6

. V a r i a n c e R e q u e s t T h e C u s t o m e r o r C u s t o m e r ’ s C o n t r a c t o r c a n

r e q u e s t a V a r i a n c e R e q u e s t f r o m P G & E i f t h e p r o j e c t i s u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n H a n d b o o k a n d G r e e n b o o k

. P l e a s e s e e t h e A p p l i c a t i o n f o r N E M I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s o n V a r i a n c e R e q u e s t c o m p o n e n t s

.

7

. P V M o d u l e E q u i p m e n t S p e c S h e e t I f t h e P V m o d u l e i s n o t l i s t e d o n t h e

G o S o l a r C a l i f o r n i a

. c o m a p p r o v e d e q u i p m e n t l i s t

, p l e a s e p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e e q u i p m e n t s p e c

s h e e t d e t a i l i n g t h e m a k e , m o d e l

, a n d r a t i n g

.

8

. I n v e r t e r M o d u l e E q u i p m e n t S p e c S h e e t I f t h e i n v e r t e r i s n o t l i s t e d o n t h e

G o S o l a r C a l i f o r n i a

. c o m a p p r o v e d e q u i p m e n t l i s t

, p l e a s e p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e e q u i p m e n t s p e c

s h e e t d e t a i l i n g t h e m a k e , m o d e l

, a n d r a t i n g

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 S t a n d a r d N e t E n e r g y M e t e r i n g ( N E M S ) | P G & E

h t t p : / / w w w

. p g e

. c o m / e n / m y b u s i n e s s / s e r v i c e s / n o n p g e / g e n e r a t e o

w n p o w e r / n e t e n e r g y m e t e r i n g / s t a n d a r d n e m / i n d e x

. p a g e 4 / 4 A b o u t C a r e e r s C o n t a c t U s P r i v a c y N e w s r o o m R e g u l a t i o n

" P G & E " r e f e r s t o P a c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y , a s u b s i d i a r y o f P G & E C o r p o r a t i o n

. © 2 0 1 4 P a c i f i c G a s a n d E l e c t r i c C o m p a n y

. A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d

.1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

h t t p s : / / w w w

. t e p

. c o m / r e n e

w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / 1 / 5 

# ( / )

H o m e ( / ) | N e w s ( / n e w s / ) | C a r e e r s ( / c a r e e r s / ) | A b o u t U s ( / a b o u t / ) | C o n t a c t U s ( / c o n t a c t / )



### S e a r c h 

R E N E W A B L E E N E R G Y ( / R E N E W A B L E / )

H o m e P r o g r a m s

B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r ( / r e n e w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / )

S o l a r W a t e r H e a t i n g ( / r e n e w a b l e / h o m e / h e a t / )

S o l a r E l e c t r i c P h o t o v o l t a i c ( P V ) ( / r e n e w a b l e / h o m e / p v / )

B u s i n e s s P r o g r a m s

T o o l s a n d R e s o u r c e s

R e p o r t s ( / r e n e w a b l e / r e p o r t s / o v e r v i e w / )

P r o g r a m s 

# B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r

P o w e r y o u r h o m e o r b u s i n e s s w i t h l o c a l l y

g e n e r a t e d s o l a r p o w e r

.



### A s a T E P c u s t o m e r , y o u c a n p u r c h a s e s o l a r p o w e r t o c o v e r s o m e o r a l l o f y o u r e l e c t r i c a l n e e d s

.

H o m e ( / ) / R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y ( / r e n e w a b l e / ) / H o m e P r o g r a m s / B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r ( / r e n e w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / )1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

h t t p s : / / w w w

. t e p

. c o m / r e n e

w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / 2 / 5 

# R e s e r v e Y o u r B r i g h t T u c s o n S o l a r P o w e r B l o c k s

T h e B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r P r o g r a m o f f e r s a n e a s y a n d a f

f o r d a b l e w a y t o m e e t y o u r e l e c t r i c

n e e d s w i t h l o c a l l y g e n e r a t e d s o l a r p o w e r

. A s a T E P c u s t o m e r , y o u n o w h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
p u r c h a s e s o l a r p o w e r i n " b l o c k s " o f 1 5 0 k i l o w a t t h o u r s ( k W h ) p e r m o n t h

. Y o u c a n b u y s o m e o r a l l o f y o u r
p o w e r t h r o u g h t h e p r o g r a m , r e d u c i n g o r e l i m i n a t i n g y o u r e n e r g y f r o m c o n v e n t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s

.



# E n r o l l T o d a y

S i g n u p ( / A M / r e d i r e c t

. p h p ? l = c o m m u n i t y s o l a r e n r o l l )



# F e a t u r e s a n d B e n e f i t s

N o u p

­ f r o n t e x p e n s e s o r e q u i p m e n t m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s

R e n e w a b l e e n e r g y o p t i o n f o r r e n t e r s a n d t h o s e c u s t o m e r s w h o s e r o o f t o p s a r e s h a d e d b y t r e e s o r

n e a r b y b u i l d i n g s O v e r v i e w F A Q s1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

h t t p s : / / w w w

. t e p

. c o m / r e n e

w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / 3 / 5 

### P r o t e c t i o n o f

f e r e d a g a i n s t f u t u r e e n e r g y c o s t i n c r e a s e s

S u r c h a r g e e x e m p t i o n f o r s o l a r e n e r g y p u r c h a s e s o n r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y , f u e l a n d p u r c h a s e d p o w e r

M i n i m i z e d c a r b o n f o o t p r i n t a n d r e l i a n c e o n f o s s i l f u e l s

C l e a n , g r e e n r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y f o r a n a f f o r d a b l e p r i c e

E a c h b l o c k p u r c h a s e d w i l l a d d $ 3

. 0 0 t o y o u r m o n t h l y e l e c t r i c b i l l

. H o w e v e r , p r o g r a m b l o c k s a r e e x e m p t
f r o m t w o s u r c h a r g e s a p p l i e d t o o t h e r e l e c t r i c u s a g e : t h e R e n e w a b l e E n e r g y S t a n d a r d T a r i f f ( R E S T ) a n d
t h e P u r c h a s e d P o w e r a n d F u e l A d j u s t m e n t C l a u s e ( P P F A C )

, s o y o u r a c t u a l i m p a c t w i l l b e l o w e r

. B o t h

s u r c h a r g e s a r e a d j u s t e d a n n u a l l y t o r e f l e c t c h a n g i n g e n e r g y c o s t s a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s , s o t h e b e n e f i t o f

a v o i d i n g t h e m w o u l d i n c r e a s e o v e r t i m e i f t h e s u r c h a r g e s r i s e

.


# M i n i m a l C o s t

S o l a r p o w e r c o s t s m o r e t h a n c o n v e n t i o n a l e n e r g y d e r i v e d f r o m f o s s i l

­ f u e l e d p o w e r p l a n t s , s o
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e p r o g r a m w i l l i n c r e a s e y o u r e l e c t r i c b i l l

. E a c h b l o c k r e p l a c e s t h e c h a r g e s f o r a n e q u i v a l e n t a m o u n t o f c o n v e n t i o n a l p o w e r a t a r a t e t h a t c u r r e n t l y a d d s $ 3

. 0 0 t o y o u r

m o n t h l y b i l l

.

P r o g r a m r a t e s m u s t b e p a i d i n f u l l e a c h m o n t h r e g a r d l e s s o f a c t u a l e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n

. I f t h e s o l a r

e n e r g y p u r c h a s e d t h r o u g h t h e p r o g r a m e x c e e d s a c t u a l u s a g e d u r i n g a m o n t h l y b i l l i n g p e r i o d

, t h e

e x c e s s i s c a r r i e d f o r w a r d t o t h e n e x t b i l l i n g p e r i o d a s a c r e d i t

. A n y c r e d i t r e m a i n i n g a f t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r b i l l i n g p e r i o d w i l l b e p a i d i n f u l l a s a c r e d i t o n t h e n e x t b i l l

.

C a l c u l a t e S o l a r P o w e r ( h t t p : / / w w w

. p v s i m

. c o m / t e p c o m m u n i t y

. h t m l )

D e t e r m i n e h o w m a

n y s o l a r b l o c k s y o u c a

n p u r c h a s e

. 

# E l i g i b i l i t y

T h e B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r P r o g r a m i s a v a i l a b l e t o m o s t r e s i d e n t i a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l c u s t o m e r s i n T E P ' s s e r v i c e t e r r i t o r y

.

T h e p r o g r a m i s a v a i l a b l e t o T E P c u s t o m e r s o n t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e r a t e p l a n s :

R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v i c e ( R

­ 0 1 )

G e n e r a l S e r v i c e ( G S

­ 1 0 )

L a r g e G e n e r a l S e r v i c e ( L G S

­ 1 3 )



# L i m i t e d A v a i l a b i l i t y1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

h t t p s : / / w w w

. t e p

. c o m / r e n e

w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / 4 / 5 

### O n c e t h e p r o g r a m i s f u l l y s u b s c r i b e d

, c u s t o m e r s m a y b e p l a c e d o n a w a i t i n g l i s t u n t i l n e w l o c a l s o l a r

r e s o u r c e s b e c o m e a v a i l a b l e

. 

# C a n c e l A n y T i m e

Y o u c a n p u r c h a s e a s m a n y b l o c k s a s y o u w a n t a n d c a n c e l a t a n y t i m e

. T E P r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o l i m i t

p u r c h a s e s b a s e d o n c u s t o m e r s ' a n t i c i p a t e d e l e c t r i c u s e a n d p r o g r a m a v a i l a b i l i t y

. P a r t i c i p a n t s c a n i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f b l o c k s t h e y ' r e b u y i n g j u s t o n c e i n a 1 2

­ m o n t h p e r i o d

. 

# S o l a r E n e r g y S o u r c e

T h e e n e r g y i s g e n e r a t e d b y s o l a r p o w e r s y s t e m s l o c a t e d i n t h e T u c s o n m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a

. A s T E P

e x p a n d s i t s l o c a l s o l a r g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y , n e w r e s o u r c e s w i l l b e c o m e a v a i l a b l e t o s a t i s f y g r o w i n g d e m a n d f o r t h e p r o g r a m

.

F u t u r e d e m a n d s w o u l d b e m e t t h r o u g h n e w s o l a r p o w e r s y s t e m s l o c a t e d i n t h e T u c s o n m e t r o p o l i t a n

a r e a

. 

# Q u e s t i o n s ?

P l e a s e r e a d o u r F A Q s

. O r , e m a i l u s

. ( m a i l t o : C S

­ E E

_ R E P r o g r a m S e t u p @ t e p

. c o m )



# R e a d y t o s i g n u p f

o r B r i g h t T u c s o n C o m m u n i t y S o l a r ?

S i g n u p ( / A M / r e d i r e c t

. p h p ? l = c o m m u n i t y s o l a r e n r o l l )

A N e w B e g i n n i n g T E P h a s j o i n e d t h e F o r t i s f a m i l y o f u t i l i t i e s

. L e a r n M o r e ( h t t p : /

/ w w w

. u n s

. c o m )

S e e g r a f f i t i o n p o w e r p o l e s ? T a k e a p i c t u r e a n d s e n d a d e s c r i p t i o n t o g r a f f i t i @ t e p

. c o m ( m a i l t o : g r a f

f i t i @ t e p

. c o m ) L e a r n M o r e ( / c o n t a c t / g r a f

f i t i / )

T E P e ­ b i l l R e c e i v e , v i e w a n d p a y y o u r T E P b i l l o n l i n e

. L e a r n M o r e ( / c u s t o m e r / p a y m e n t / v i e w / )1 1 / 2 5

/ 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

h t t p s : / / w w w

. t e p

. c o m / r e n e

w a b l e / h o m e / b r i g h t / 5 / 5 M a n a g e M y A c c o u n t

G r e e n E n e r g y

C o m m u n i t y

S a f e t y a n d E d u c a t i o n

A b o u t T E P

C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 4 T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r

. A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d

. P r i v a c y ( / l e g a l / p r i v a c y / ) | T e r m s o f U s e ( / l e g a l / t e r m s / ) | U N S E n e r g y C o r p o r a t i o n ( h t t p : / / w w w

. u n s

. c o m / )

T e l l U s H o w W

e ' r e D o i n g

. ( / s u r v e y / )

C o n n e c t w i t h T E P ( h t t p : / / w w w

. f a c e b o o k

. c o m / T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r ) ( h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r

. c o m / T E P O u t a g e I n f

o )
( h t t p s : / / w w w

. y o u t u b e

. c o m / u s e r / T u c s o n E l e c t r i c P o w e r )Municipal Service Commission Gerald P. Cole Frederick C. DeLisle James S. Figurski Leslie G. Lupo Michael Sad owski Melanie L. M cCoy General Manager and Secretary 3 200 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 658 Wyandotte, MI. 48192

- 0658 Telephone: 734.324. 7100 Fax: 734.324. 7119 Electric, Steam, Water Cable Television and High Speed Internet

Service since 1889



# Wyandotte Municipal Services E xpedited Generator Interconnection

Requirements

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 2 

### INTRODUCTION

This Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements document outlines the process, requirements, and agreements used to install or modify generation projects wit h generator output capacity that does not exceed 30 kW that are designed to operate in parallel with the Wyandotte Municipal Services (“Utility”) electric system and are part of the Utility’s Net Metering Program.

ELIGIBILITY

Any residential customer * 

### in g ood standing may install, own, and operate a “Net Metered” generation source(s), interconnected in parallel with the Utility’s distribution system if the following are met (subject to the requirements of the “Net Metering Agreement”):

1. Completed application describing the interconnected generation that includes a $100 application fee.

2. The generation source is solar, wind, or hydro.

3. The total nameplate capacity of the generation source is 30 kilowatts or less.

4. The generation source is located on the eligible customer’s premises, is operated by said customer, and is interconnected through a single point of service.

5. The generation is used primarily to offset all or a part of the eligible customer’s electric load.

6. Eligible customers shall enter into a “Net Meteri ng Agreement” with the Utility before the generation source is allowed to interconnect to the Utility’s distribution system.

7. The Utility reserves the right to limit the number of customers.

GENERAL

1. All Customer

- Owned generating facility installations shall comply with any and all applicable codes and standards, including but not limited to those listed in this document.

2. Interconnection shall not be allowed to the Utility’s distribution system until the installation has been approved by an authorized municip al, county, or other

* 

### Other non

- residential customers may apply at the discretion of the Utility.

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 3 

### governmental inspector where such inspection procedures are established.

3. Generation source shall comply with IEEE Std. 1547

.

INSTALLATION AND OPERATION

1. The eligible customer shall provide proof of a qualified installation of the genera tion source by a licensed electrical contractor.

2. The eligible customer shall install, operate, and maintain the generation source in

a ccordance with the manufacturer s suggested practices.

3. A lockable manual disconnect switch with load

- break capability shall be installed between the generation source and the Utility’s distribution system and be accessible to Utility personnel at all times. This switch shall be labeled as follows: (See Figure 1)

4. The Utility may isolate the eligible customer’s generation source at any time if it is believed that continued operation of the generation source will create or contribute to a system emergency , for safety purposes, or for reliability purposes

.

5. The Utility may perform on

- site inspections to verify the proper insta llation and continued safe operation of the generation source, interconnection equipment, and net metering facilities. Inspections shall be done at reasonable times and with reasonable advance notice to the eligible customer.

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 4 

### METE RING

1. The Utility shall have the option of metering two watt

- hour meters as shown above in Figure 1 or through a single bidirectional meter

.
2. If a second watt

- hour meter is used, one meter will measure kWh used by the eligible customer, and the other will me asure the kWh exported by the customer to the Utility’s distribution system. If the Utility chooses to utilize a single bidirectional meter, that meter will measure the net kWh used by the eligible
customer.

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 A

- 1 

## APPLICATION

1. 

### The undersigned Customer Gene rator submits this Generator Interconnection Application with the application fee to interconnect a new Project to the Utility ’s distribution system

.
2. 

### The Customer Generator requesting interconnection to the Utility distribution

s ystem must provide the foll owing information:

a. 

### Description of the equipment configuration and proposed interconnection one

- line diagram (one

- line diagram must be attached to this Interconnection Application).

b. 

### Project Developer (Single Point of Contact):

Name:

Address:

Phone Num ber:

Fax Number:

e

- mail Address:
Project Site Address:

3. 

### This Generator Interconnection Application shall be directed to the Utility representative as indicated below:

General Manager

, Wyandotte Municipal Services

3 200 Biddle Ave

, Suite 200

, Wyandotte, MI 48192

4. 

### I, the undersigned and authorized representative of the Customer Generator , submit this Generator Interconnection Application for the Utility. I understand that I shall be required to furnish certain required technical data as requested by the U tility in support of this application

.

Authorized Signature:

Printed Name:

Title:
Company Name:

Date:

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 1 

## INTERCONNECTION AND PARALLEL OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR EXPEDITED PROJECTS (INVERTER BASED

- 10kW OR LESS)

This Interconnection and Parallel Operati ng Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on _____________ (insert date of last signature from page 8) by_________________________ (the “Utility”), ___________________ (the “Customer”), and_______________________ (if applicable under Paragraph 5) (the “Pr operty Owner”). Utility and Customer are sometimes also referred to in this Agreement collectively as “Parties” or individually as “Party.” Customer shall be the “Project Developer” as used in and for purposes of the applicable Expedited Utility Interconne ction Requirements (“Interconnection Requirements”) approved by the Utility Board (“ Board ”).

I. RECITALS

A. Customer is an electric service customer of Utility in good standing with the Utility.

B. Customer desires to interconnect an electric generating facility with maximum capacity of 30 kilowatts (“kW”) or less (the “Customer Facility”) with Utility’s electric distribution system and operate the Customer Facility in parallel with Utility’s distribution system, under the Utility’s Expedited Utility Int erconnection Requirements and Net Metering Agreement approved by the Board (the “Standards”).

C. For purposes of this Agreement, “interconnect” means establishing a connection between a

non

- utility generating resource (in this case, the C ustomer Facility) and Utility’s distribution system. “Operate in parallel” means generating electricity from a non

- utility resource (in this case, the Customer Facility) that is connected to Utility’s system. In all cases, terms shall have the meaning as defined in the Standards.

D. Interconnection of the Customer Facility with Utility’s distribution system is subject to this Agreement, the Application, the Interconnection Requirements, the Standards and ap plicable utility tariffs approved by the Board

.

E. This Agreement does not address any purchase or sale of electricity between Utility and Customer nor does it create any agency, partnership, joint venture or other business arrangement bet ween or among Utility, Customer and/or Property Owner.

II. AGREEMENT

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual covenants contained herein and for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Description of Customer Facility

1.1 The Customer Facility must be built with the following ratings, which shall not be changed without thirty (30) days advance written notice to Utility according to the notice requirements herein:

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 2 

### Photovoltaic/Solar (“P V”) Array Rating: _________________________________kW

Certified Test Record Number (UL1741 Scope 1.1A): ______________________ kW

Wind Turbine (WT) Rating: ___________________________________________kW

Hydro Rating: _____________________________________ ______kW

Service Type (circle one): Single Phase / Three Phase

Voltage Level: ___________

Equipment Specifications: Make: ___________Model: _____________

1.2 Customer Facility Location:

_______________________________________________

____________

___________________________________

_______________________________________________ (Street Address, City, State, Zip)

If Customer is not the owner of the property identified above, the Property Owner must sign this Agreement for the purposes indicated in Paragraph 5.

1.3 Customer’s Utility service account number: ____________________

Property Owner’s Utility service account number (if applicable): ______________________

1.4 The Customer Facility is planned to be ready for parallel operation on or a bout:

_________ ____

__(insert date)

2. Interconnection Facilities

If it is necessary for Utility to install certain interconnection facilities (“Interconnection Facilities”) and make certain system modifications in order to establish an int erconnection between the Customer Facility and Utility’s distribution system, the Interconnection facilities and modifications shall be described to the Customer.

3. Design Requirements, Testing and Maintenance of Customer Facili ty

3.1 Customer shall be responsible for the design and installation of the Customer Facility and obtaining and maintaining any required governmental authorizations and/or permits, which may include, but shall not be limited to, easements to clear trees, and necessary rights

- of

- way for installation and maintenance of the Utility Interconnection Facilities. Customer shall reimburse Utility for its costs and expenses to acquire such easements / permits.

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 3 

### 3.2 Customer shall, at its sole expense, install and properly maintain protective relay equipment and devices to protect its equipment and service, and the equipment and system of Utility, from damage, injury or interruptions, and will assume any loss, liability or damage to the Customer Facility caused by lack of or failure of such protection. Such protective equipment specifications and design shall be consistent with the applicable Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements. Prior to the Customer Facility operating in parallel with Utility distribut ion system, Customer Shall provide satisfactory evidence to Utility that it has met the Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements, including but not limited to the receipt of approval from the local building/electrical code inspector.

3.3 At its o wn expense, Customer shall perform operational testing at least five (5) days prior to the installation of any Interconnection Facilities by Utility

. Utility may send qualified personnel to the Customer Facility to inspect the facility and observe the tes ting. Upon completion of such testing and inspection and prior to interconnection Customer shall provide Utility with a written report explaining all test results, including a copy of the generator commissioning test report.

Protective relay equipment s hall be tested every two (2) years (unless an extension is agreed to by Utility) to verify the calibration indicated on the latest relay sett ing document issued by Utility. The results of such tests shall be provided to Utility in writing for review and ap proval. Utility may, at any time and at its sole expense, inspect and test the Customer Facility to verify that the required protective equipment is in service, properly maintained, and calibrated to provide the intended protection. This inspection may als o include a review of Customer's pertinent records Inspection, testing and/or approval by Utility or the omission of any inspection, testing and/or approval by Utility pursuant to this Agreement shall not relieve the Customer of any obligations or responsi bility assumed under this Agreement.

3.4 Customer shall operate and maintain the Customer Facility in a safe and prudent manner and in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations. Customer shall obtain or maintain any governmental authorizations and permits required for construction and operation of the Customer Facility.

4. Disconnection

Utility shall be entitled to disconnect the Customer Facility from Utility’s distribution system, or otherwise refuse to connect the Customer Facility, if: (a) Customer has not complied with any one of the technical requirements contained in the applicable Interconnection Requirements, (b) the electrical characteristics of the Customer Facility are not compatible with the electrical characteristics of Utilit y’s distribution system, (c) an emergency condition exists on Utility’s distribution system, (d) Customer's protective relay equipment fails, (e) Utility determines that the Customer Facility is disrupting service to any Utility customer, (f) disconnectio n is required to allow for construction, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, investigation, inspection or testing of any part of Utility’s facilities, (g) if a required installation ( e.g., telephone line) fails or becomes incapacitated and is not repaired in a timely manner, as determined by Utility, or (f) Customer commits a material breach of this Agreement.

5. Access to Property

5.1 At its own expense, Customer shall make the Customer Facility site available to Utility. The site shall be free from hazards and shall be adequate for the operation and construction of the Interconnection Facilities. Utility, its agents and employees, shall have full right and authority of ingress and egress at all

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 4 

### reasonable times on and across the pr operty at which the Customer’s Facility is located, for the purpose of installing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, replacing, repairing, and removing the Interconnection Facilities. The right of ingress and egress shall not unreasonably interfere with Customer's or (if different) Property Owner’s use of the property.

5.2 Utility may enter the property on which the Customer Facility is located to inspect, at reasonable hours, Customer’s protective devices and read or test meters. Utility will use reason able efforts to provide Customer or Property Owner, if applicable, at least 24 hours’ notice prior to entering said property, in order to afford Customer or Property Owner the opportunity to remove any locks or other encumbrances to entry; provided, howeve r , that Utility may enter the property without notice (removing, at Customer’s expense, any lock or other encumbrance to entry) and disconnect the Interconnection Facilities if Utility believes that disconnection is necessary to address a hazardous conditi on and/or to protect persons, Utility’s facilities, or the property of others from damage or interference caused by Customer’s Facility.

5.3 By executing this Agreement, Property Owner consents to and agrees to provide access to its property on which the Customer Facility is located to Utility as described in this section, but does not assume or guarantee other performance obligations of the Customer under this Agreement.

6. Indemnity and Liability

6.1 Unless caused by the sole negligence or intentio nal wrongdoing of the other Party, each Party to this Agreement shall at all times assume all liability for, and shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other Party and its directors, officers, employees, and agents from, any and all damages, losses , claims, demands, suits, recoveries, costs, legal fees, and expenses: (a) for injury to or death of any person or persons whomsoever occurring on its own system, or (b) for any loss, destruction of or damage to any property of third persons, firms, corpor ations or other entities occurring on its own system, including environmental harm or damage, or (c) arising out of or resulting from, either directly or indirectly, its own Interconnection Facilities, or (d) arising out of or resulting from, either direc tly or indirectly, any electric energy furnished to it hereunder after such energy has been delivered to it by such other Party. The provisions of this Section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

6.2 The provisions of this Section 6 shall not be construed to relieve any insurer of its obligations to pay any insurance claims in accordance with the provisions of any valid insurance policy.

6.3 Notwithstanding anything in this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any liability of a Party to the other Party shall be limited to direct actual damages, and all other damages at law or in equity are hereby waived. Under no circumstances shall a Party be liable to the other Party, whether in tort, contract or o ther basis in law or equity for any special, indirect, punitive, exemplary or consequential damages, including lost profits. The indemnification obligations and limits on liability in this Section shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the expiration or termination of this Agreement, with respect to any event or condition giving rise to an indemnification obligation that occurred prior to such expiration or termination.

7. Breach and Default

A breach of this Agreement (“Breach”) shall o ccur upon the failure of a Party to perform or observe any material term or condition of this Agreement, if the Standards or the Interconnection Requirement. Upon a

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 5 

### Breach by one Party, the non

- breaching Party shall give written notice of such Breach to th e Breaching Party. The Party in Breach shall have 30 days from the date of the written notice to cure the Breach. If a Breach is not cured within the 30

- day period provided for herein, the Party in Breach shall be deemed in default (“Default”). The non def aulting Party shall then have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice, shall be relieved of any further obligations hereunder, and may pursue any and all remedies available to it at law or in equity.

8. Governing Law

This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed, and construed under the laws of Michigan.

9. Amendment, Modification or Waiver

Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and agreed to by both Parties. The failure of any Party at any time to requi re performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect its right at a later time to enforce the same. No waiver by any Party of the breach of any term or covenant contained in this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, shall be deemed to be construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such breach or a waiver of the breach of any other term or covenant unless such waiver is in writing.

10. Notices

Any notice required under this Agreement shall be in writing and mailed or personally delivered to the Party at the address below. Written notice is effective within 3 days of depositing the notice in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid. Personal notice is effective upon delivery. Written notice of any address changes shall be provided. All written notices shall refer to the Customer’s Utility account number, as provided in Section 1 of this Agreement. All written notices shall be directed as follows:

Notice to Utility:

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Notice to Customer:

_______________________________________________

_________________________________________ ______

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________ Notice to Property Owner (if different than Customer):

_______________________________________________

____________________________________________ ___

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 6 

### 11. Term of Agreement and Termination

This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by all Parties and, if applicable, the Property Owner, and it shall continue in full force and effect until terminated upon thirty (30) days’ prior notice by either Party, upon Default of either Party as set forth in Section 7, upon mutual agreement of the Parties, or upon a change in ownership of either the Custo mer Facility or the property at which the Customer Facility is located absent a valid assignment under Section 14.

Utility may independently terminate this agreement if, after one year, the Customer Facility

12. Entire Agreement

This Agreement super sedes all prior discussions and agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties hereto.

13. No Third Party Beneficiary

The terms and provisions of this Agreement are inte nded solely for the benefit of each Party, and it is not the intention of the Parties to confer third

- party beneficiary rights upon any other person or entity.

14. Assignment and Binding Effect

This Agreement shall not be assigned by a Party without th e prior written consent of the other Party. Any attempt to do so will be void. Subject to the preceding, this Agreement is binding upon, inures to the benefit of, and is enforceable by the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. Customer agree s to notify Utility in writing upon the sale or transfer of the Customer Facility. This Agreement shall terminate upon such notice unless Utility consents to an assignment.

15. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be partial ly or wholly invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be modified or restricted to the extent necessary to make such provision valid, binding, and enforceable; or, if such provision cannot be modified or restricted in a ma nner so as to make such provision valid, binding or enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the validity, binding effect, and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected or impaired in any manner.

# Wyandotte Municipal Services Expedited Generator Interconnection Requirements

Expedited Generator Interconnection Sept 2012 B

- 7 

### 16. Signatures

The Parties to this Agreement hereby agree to have two originals of this Agreement executed by their duly authorized representatives. This Agreement is effective as of the later (or latest) of the dates set fo rth below.

UTILITY Signature:________________________________________________

Name:___________________________________________________

Title:____________________________________________________

Date:____________________________________________________

CUSTOMER Signature:________________________________________________

Name:___________________________________________________

Title:____________________________________________________

Date:____________________________________________________

PROPERT Y OWNER (IF APPLICABLE) Signature:________________________________________________

Name:___________________________________________________

Title:____________________________________________________

Date:_________________________________________________

___