Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CBA_report

75 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CBA_report

  1. 1. 1 Final Report with Findings and Calculations for: Cost Benefit Analysis for Energy Efficiency FINAL Prepared for: Cities of South Bay Prepared by: 20285 South Western Avenue Suite 100 Torrance, California 90501 August 2015
  2. 2. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... Methodology...................................................................................................................... Incentives and Calculations.............................................................................................. Photovoltaic System ...................................................................................................... Solar Thermal System ........................................................................................................ Geothermal ....................................................................................................................... Wave/Tidal Power.............................................................................................................. Energy Storage.................................................................................................................. Summary of Incentives....................................................................................................... Appendices......................................................................................................................... Appendix A. Federal Incentives ........................................................................................... Appendix B. State Incentives ..............................................................................................
  3. 3. 3 INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings and calculations to help guiding a CAP – Climate Action Plan development for the cities of South Bay, and the strategies for the eventual employment of renewable and/or efficient energy sources for the cities. The research includes the cost benefit analysis based on the research on each technology and the respective studies and economic models available, also includes the listing of programs and incentives currently available from the government to residential, commercial, industrial, non-profit and government buildings use, focused on the following technologies: - Solar PV and Solar Thermal; - Geothermal; - Tidal/ Wave power; - Energy Storage To calculate the cost benefit analysis for each source of energy, the SAM (System Advisor Model), a model developed by NREL, research on feasibility studies of some case studies in the U.S, and consulting equipment suppliers, were the tools to get the findings and calculations for this report. The financial outputs targeted were those used to measure the investment efficiency, such as the IRR (internal Rate of Return), the Payback, and the Levelized COE, which is a specific metric for the cost of electricity produced by a generator, calculated by accounting for all of a system’s expected lifetime costs. In order to obtain those measures the inputs were based on real cases or inputs by default in the models
  4. 4. 4 METHODOLOGY Research and Calculations The research was based on official sources such as the CEC – California Energy Commission, the CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission, the U.S Department of Energy, organizations funded or supported by the government (DSIRE, find-solar); or academic researches by renowned universities. Solar PV/ Solar Thermal/ Geothermal The calculations for solar and geothermal was based on the computer model SAM – System Advisor Model, developed by NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories in 2005. Since the first public release, over 35,000 people representing manufacturers, project developers, academic researchers, and policy makers have downloaded the software. Project developers use SAM to evaluate different system configurations to maximize earnings from electricity sales while policy makers and designers use the model to experiment with different incentive structures. SAM represents the cost and performance of renewable energy projects. The models require input data to describe the performance characteristics of physical equipment in the system and project costs. SAM includes several libraries of performance data and coefficients that describe the characteristics of system components such as photovoltaic modules and inverters, parabolic trough receivers and collectors, wind turbines, and biopower combustion systems. For those components, you simply choose an option from a list, and SAM applies values from the library to the input variables. SAM can automatically download data and populate input variable values from the following online databases: • OpenEI U.S. Utility Rate Database for retail electricity rate structures for U.S. utilities • NREL Solar Prospector for solar resource data and ambient weather conditions. For the remaining input variables, it is possible either use the default value or change its value. Some examples of input variables are: • Installation costs including equipment purchases, labor, engineering and other project costs, land costs, and operation and maintenance costs. • Numbers of modules and inverters, tracking type, derating factors for photovoltaic systems. • Collector and receiver type, solar multiple, storage capacity, power block capacity for parabolic trough systems. • Analysis period, real discount rate, inflation rate, tax rates, internal rate of return target or power purchase price for utility financing models. • Building load and time-of-use retail rates for commercial and residential financing models. • Tax and cash incentive amounts and rates.
  5. 5. 5 Figure 1. Initial SAM screen. Inputs must be complete for each criteria either using the default data or using the own data for weather conditions, system size, costs and incentives, electricity rates Another source used to estimate the cost benefit for Solar PV technology was at http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php, an organization that provides a solar calculator to help households to estimate their costs and find contractors to install Solar PV, Solar Thermal and Wind energy systems. In this website it is provided a report that rank the best investments based upon available incentives, utility rates, and solar (or wind) resources at that location. They use the Profit Index (PI) as a measure of investment efficiency. If PI is 1, every dollar invested returns a dollar. If greater than 1, the investment returns more than a dollar for each dollar invested. If less than 1, the investment may not return the full value of the investment over the assumed system life. Also the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is measured for the investment efficiency. It is defined as the interest rate that causes the project net present value (NPV) to equal zero, and is equivalent to the yield to maturity of a bond. The internal rate of return (IRR) on an investment or potential investment is the annualized effective compounded rate of return that can be earned on the invested capital. Lastly, another index is the Payback, the most commonly used measure of the security of a proposed investment, defined as the length of time until one gets one`s money back. Payback is the moment when the cumulative cash in-flows exceed the total of all cash out-flows.
  6. 6. 6 Wave/ Tidal Power For the wave/ tidal power our research was based on the studies conducted by the California Energy Commission - the Report “California Ocean Wave Energy Assessment” prepared by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 2007 for the Public Interest Energy Research – PIER, a program from California Energy Commission The cost benefit analysis for Tidal/ Wave power, the source for the research was based upon studies conducted by Universities in California and case studies, such as the tidal power plant in San Francisco. For this case the source was the feasibility study concluded in 2009 by URS and available at http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1624 Energy Storage In order to analyze the cost benefit for energy storage, the source used was the simulations provided by a tool developed by EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute, a non-profit institute based in Palo Alto-CA. They developed an innovative methodology for quantifying the value of grid energy storage opportunities, the EPRI Energy Storage Valuation Tool (ESVT)- a software that enables preliminary economic analysis prior to more resource-intensive analytical efforts. The report available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/705DFEA1-9A22-4BFA-889B- A717CD5801C4/0/EPRI_Presentation.pdf describes applications of the methodology and tool to analyze a range of energy storage cases, including different uses, technologies, locations, and future electricity market scenarios. The analyses were performed to inform stakeholders of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) regulatory proceeding investigating the cost- effectiveness of energy storage. These scenarios covered three different general use cases, including transmission-connected bulk energy storage, short-duration energy storage to provide ancillary services, and distribution-connected energy storage located at a utility substation.
  7. 7. 7 INCENTIVES AND CALCULATIONS Photovoltaic System The cost of a Photovoltaic System depends on the system size, equipment options (panels and inverters), permitting costs, and labor costs. Prices vary depending on other factors as well, such as whether your home is new, where the system is installed on your premise, the PV manufacturer, and other variables such as the weather, location, incentives available. According Go Solar California, a program that joins effort of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, the total average cost of an installed residential PV system under the California Solar Initiative is $8.70 per Watt (including installation, as of January 2011). That translates to about $34,800 for a four-kilowatt system, the average size of a residential installation. Because of the declining rebates in the California solar programs, the sooner installing a system, the better the incentive and rebate will be. Still as an example, according the website, a south-facing three-kilowatt system installed at a 30-degree angle on a single-family home with a utility bill of $180 per month in San Francisco would cost a customer an estimated $19,282 with a payback period of 12 years http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/solar_basics/pricing_financing.php Simulating at the SAM – System Advisor Model, the installation of a PV System for a residential use considering a typical family of 4 consuming nearly 13,000 kwh/year, among others assumptions described below, the following results for NPV and Payback are the following: SAM (SYSTEM ADVISOR MODEL) Assumptions Energy saved (kWh/year) Annual Cost without PV ($) Annual Cost with PV ($) Net savings with system ($) NPV ($) Payback period (years) Net capital cost ($) Equit y ($) Debt ($) Photovoltaic Residential Weather Location Los Angeles 6,217 973 194 779 4,348 11,7 12,747 0 12,747 System Capacity 4 kWac Energy Usage (family of 4; 2 stories 12,910kW h/year Loan term 25 years Loan rate 5%/year Federal income tax rate 30%/year State tax rate 7%/year Incentive: Investment Tax Credit (Federal) 30% Electricity Rates residential (SCE)
  8. 8. 8 In order to compare the results, we can see at the table below, the payback and another numbers such as the Profit Index and IRR of some structures in California where PV systems were installed, according http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php : Utility 1st Year Utility Savings PV Size Profit Index IRR Payback Installed Cost (assumed) Installation Incentives Total Incentives Electric ($/kWh) Moreno Valley City $1,628 3.53 kW 4.34 25.00% 5.34 years $17,650 $9,831 $9,831 $0.17 City of Riverside $1,531 3.53 kW 4.07 23.60% 5.59 years $17,650 $9,831 $9,831 $0.16 City of Glendale $1,436 3.16 kW 3.9 22.70% 5.78 years $15,800 $8,139 $8,139 $0.15 City of Lodi $1,723 3.89 kW 3.89 22.70% 5.79 years $19,450 $10,235 $10,235 $0.18 City of Gridley $1,723 3.92 kW 3.65 21.40% 6.07 years $19,600 $9,800 $9,800 $0.18 City of Lompoc $1,531 3.78 kW 3.6 21.20% 6.13 years $18,900 $10,080 $10,080 $0.16 City of Pasadena $1,436 3.16 kW 3.52 20.70% 6.26 years $15,800 $7,298 $7,298 $0.15 City of Burbank Water and Power $1,436 3.16 kW 3.51 20.70% 6.26 years $15,800 $7,288 $7,288 $0.15 City of Anaheim $1,339 3.85 kW 3.39 20.10% 6.39 years $19,250 $11,111 $11,111 $0.14 LADWP (City of Los Angeles) $1,339 3.60 kW 2.65 16.00% 7.72 years $18,000 $7,583 $7,583 $0.14 City of Azusa $1,244 3.16 kW 3.23 19.20% 6.65 years $15,800 $7,826 $7,826 $0.13 City of Corona DWP $1,531 3.53 kW 3.21 19.10% 6.69 years $17,650 $7,755 $7,755 $0.16 Southern California Water Co $1,973 3.80 kW 3.1 18.40% 6.92 years $19,000 $5,700 $5,700 $0.21 City of Colton $1,628 3.16 kW 3.08 18.30% 6.96 years $15,800 $4,740 $4,740 $0.17 City of Banning $1,818 3.53 kW 3.08 18.30% 6.96 years $17,650 $5,295 $5,295 $0.19 City of Shasta Lake $1,339 4.06 kW 2.75 16.60% 7.47 years $20,300 $10,309 $10,309 $0.14 San Diego Gas & Electric Co $1,723 3.85 kW 2.66 16.00% 7.75 years $19,250 $5,775 $5,775 $0.18 City of Alameda $1,244 3.81 kW 2.65 16.00% 7.69 years $19,050 $9,419 $9,419 $0.13 City of Needles $1,052 3.78 kW 2.64 16.00% 7.66 years $18,900 $10,803 $10,803 $0.11 City of Roseville $1,436 3.88 kW 2.51 15.20% 8.06 years $19,400 $7,584 $7,584 $0.15 City of Biggs $1,628 3.92 kW 2.46 14.90% 8.21 years $19,600 $5,880 $5,880 $0.17 City of Ukiah $1,244 4.07 kW 2.32 14.10% 8.51 years $20,350 $9,368 $9,368 $0.13 Pacific Gas & Electric Co $1,436 3.81 kW 2.3 14.00% 8.62 years $19,050 $6,152 $6,152 $0.15 City of Healdsburg $1,339 4.03 kW 2.26 13.70% 8.72 years $20,150 $7,957 $7,957 $0.14 City of Palo Alto $1,244 3.91 kW 2.23 13.60% 8.77 years $19,550 $8,133 $8,133 $0.13
  9. 9. 9 Southern California Edison Co $1,339 3.80 kW 2.16 13.20% 9.02 years $19,000 $6,252 $6,252 $0.14 City of Santa Clara (Silicon Valley Power) $957 3.91 kW 2.11 12.90% 9.05 years $19,550 $10,401 $10,401 $0.10 CA: Solar Electric (PV) Investments by Utility - http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php Solar Thermal System According the U.S Department of Energy, on average, when installed a solar water heater, the water heating bills should drop 50%–80%. Also, because the sun is free, future fuel shortages and price hikes are avoided. In case of building a new home or refinancing, the economics are even more attractive. Including the price of a solar water heater in a new 30-year mortgage usually amounts to between $13 and $20 per month. The federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest attributable to the solar system reduces that by about $3–$5 per month. So if the fuel savings are more than $15 per month, the solar investment is profitable immediately (energy.gov/energysaver/articles/estimating-cost-and-energy-efficiency-solar-water-heater ) To estimate the annual operating cost of a solar water heating system, you need the following: - The system's solar energy factor (SEF) - The solar energy factor is defined as the energy delivered by the system divided by the electrical or gas energy put into the system. The higher the number, the more energy efficient. Solar energy factors range from 1.0 to 11. Systems with solar energy factors of 2 or 3 are the most common. (http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/estimating-cost-and-energy-efficiency-solar-water- heater) - The auxiliary tank fuel type (gas or electric) and costs (your local utility can provide current rates). Simulating in the SAM – System Advisor Model, the installation of a Solar Water Heating System for a residential use considering a typical family of 4, with a consumption of nearly 13,000 With a gas auxiliary tank system With an electric auxiliary tank system *Fuel Cost ($/therm) SEF *Electricity Cost (kWh) SEF 1,26 3 0,20 3 365 0,4105 365 12,03 (kWh/day) 365×0.4105÷SEF×Fuel Cost (therm) 365×12.03kWh/day÷SEF×Electricity Cost (kWh) Estimated annual cost of operation ($) US$356,74 US$292,73
  10. 10. 10 kwh/year - that corresponds to 73,000 kg/year of hot water draw, among the others assumptions described below, the following results for NPV and Payback are the following: Geothermal According the U.S Department of Energy, depending on factors such as climate, soil conditions, the system features you choose, and available financing and incentives, you may recoup your initial investment in two to ten years through lower utility bills. And -- when included in a mortgage -- your investment in a GHP will produce a positive cash flow from the beginning. For example, if the extra $3,500 cost of the GHP will add $30 per month to each mortgage payment, the energy cost savings will easily exceed that added mortgage amount over the course of each year. The biggest benefit of GHPs is that they use 25% to 50% less electricity than conventional heating or cooling systems. This translates into a GHP using one unit of electricity to move three units of heat from the earth. According to the EPA, geothermal heat pumps can reduce energy consumption -- and corresponding emissions -- up to 44% compared with air-source heat pumps and up to 72% compared with electric resistance heating with standard air- conditioning equipment. (http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/choosing-and-installing-geothermal- heat-pumps ) SAM (SYSTEM ADVISOR MODEL) Assumptions Energy saved (kWh/year) Annual Cost without PV ($) Annual Cost with PV ($) Net savings with system ($) NPV ($) Payback period (years) Net capital cost ($) Equity ($) Debt ($) Solar Water Residential Weather Location Los Angeles 2.526 3.981 3.199 782 1.617 10,4 8.060 1.612 6.448 System Capacity (hot water draw) 73,000kg/year Energy Usage (family of 4; 2 stories 12,910kWh/year Loan term 20 years Loan rate 7%/year Federal income tax rate 28%/year State tax rate 7%/year Incentive: Investment Tax Credit (Federal) 30% Electricity Rates residential (SCE)
  11. 11. 11 At the SAM – System Advisor Model, it is possible to simulate the installation of a geothermal power plant for the utility, but not in a small scale for a residential use – single family of 4 – as the solar systems. In this case, when simulating the installation of a Geothermal (Hydrotermal) System for the Utility considering by default a power plant of 15,000 kW and the installation of 3 wells, among the others assumptions described below, the following results for NPV and IRR, in this case, are the following: About the geothermal energy for residential use, the cost benefit analysis was based on research among equipment suppliers. Geothermal Genius was the organization that provides the numbers, costs and payback based on a case study, the installation of a heat pump model, 5 ton Geothermal System with vertical loop field in a home of 3,500 sqft size, located outside of Philadelphia, PA, in 2009. The installation costs at that time were $26,000, with operational costs of $512 per year, which reflected annual savings of $2,820. The payback was calculated 6.5 years. http://www.geothermalgenius.org/thinking-of-buying/geothermal-installation-by-the- numbers-in-pennsylvania.html SAM (SYSTEM ADVISOR MODEL) Assumptions Energy production (kWh/year) Installed Costs per capacity ($/kW) O&M Costs by generation ($/MWh) NPV ($) IRR (%) Net capital cost ($) Equity ($) Debt ($) Geothermal (Hydrotermal) - Utility Location Los Angeles 151.435.664 3.590 3 5.191.232 11 60.697.008 28.286.626 32.410.382 Total Resource Potential 210 MW Resource Temperature 200 'C Resource Depth 2000 m Plant configuration 15000kW 3 wells Total Capital Cost US$41.525.292 Total Installed Cost US$53.847.920 Indirect Costs US$10.246.366 Loan term 18 years Loan rate 7% Federal income tax rate 35%/year State tax rate 7%/year Incentive: Investment Tax Credit (Federal) 30%
  12. 12. 12 Wave/ Tidal Power According the Report “California Ocean Wave Energy Assessment”, California has over 1200 km of coastline, and the combined average annual deep water wave power flux is over 37,000 megawatts (MW) of which an upper limit of about 20% could be converted into electricity. This is sufficient for about 23% of California’s current electricity consumption. However, economics, environmental impacts, land-use and grid interconnection constraints will likely impose further limits to how much of the resource can be extracted. Although technology is still at a relatively immature stage, economic projections indicate that wave power could become cost-competitive over the long-term. The table below shows the cost performance and economic comparisons for 2 commercial plant deployed off the coast in San Francisco (Cost in $2004):
  13. 13. 13 Over 40% of the cost of electricity produced by an offshore wave energy plant is borne by the annual O&M and the 10-year refit cost. This is mainly an attribute of the early stage of technology development. As technology matures and reliability increases such cost will get lower. In addition, insurance cost for such emerging technology is higher than comparable onshore projects. O&M costs for modern wind farms makes an impact on the cost of electricity of less than 1 cent/kWh. If O&M on offshore wave power farms was equally low in cost, it would have a significant impact on the cost of electricity from such plants. Various companies have proposed the use of specialized servicing vessels and other operational measures that could significantly reduce these costs. A second impact on cost of electricity is the scale of a wave power plant. It is clear that fewer units will produce electricity at higher cost. Infrastructure and grid interconnection cost are oftentimes fixed cost that can be shared in larger projects over a larger number of devices, but have a significant impact on energy cost for smaller projects. Looking through the Feasibility Study conducted in 2009 for the installation of Tidal Power Plant in San Francisco, we can compare the evolution of the economy for this technology when comparing to studies conducted in 2004: Case Study - San Francisco Single Turbine 12 Turbine Farm Yearly energy output 3400 MWh 40 GWh Equivalent Houses 1.201 12.294 Equivalent Carbon 1516 tonnes CO2/year 18286 tonnes CO2/year Approximate Cost US$ 5 Million US$ 46.8 Million Payback Period 10.7 years 9.4 years Equating the power production with estimated cost yields the cost of power in cents per kW-hour (¢/kWh). Making mid-range and conservative estimates for uncertainties, including power conditioning and O&M costs, yields total cost of wave energy in the range of 17 to 22 ¢/kWh. This is more expensive than wind power (range of 7 to 8.5 ¢/kWh), not including a 2.5 ¢/kWh tax credit) and conventional hydrocarbons (range of 10 to 12 ¢/kWh), but is comparable with the cost of producing solar photovoltaic power before solar tax credits and other incentives are applied. Source: Feasibility Study 2009 http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1624 Energy Storage Energy Storage technologies do not generate electricity but can deliver stored electricity to the electric grid or an end-user. They are used to support the integration of renewable generation and to improve power quality by correcting voltage sags, flickers, and surges, or to correct for frequency imbalances. Storage devices are also used as uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) by supplying electricity during short utility outages. These energy devices can be located at or near
  14. 14. 14 the point of use, so they are included in the distributed energy resources category. When coupled with Demand Response technologies, Energy Storage can achieve peak load reductions at the same performance with enhanced system response at lower system cost. Energy Storage and Demand Response are two aspects of the Smart Grid research within PIER's Energy Technology Systems Integration Research Area. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/integration/storage.html ) The U.S energy Department listed the following categories of energy storage: Battery Utilities typically use batteries to provide an uninterruptible supply of electricity to power substation switchgear and to start backup power systems. Batteries also increase power quality and reliability for residential, commercial, and industrial customers by providing backup during power outages. However, there is an interest to go beyond these applications by performing load leveling and peak shaving with new battery systems. Although lead-acid is currently the standard battery type used in energy storage applications, sodium-sulfur and lithium-ion batteries are nearing commercial readiness for future utility applications. Flow Batteries Flow batteries differ from conventional rechargeable batteries in one significant way: the power and energy ratings of a flow battery are independent of each other. This is made possible by the separation of the electrolyte and the battery stack. A flow battery, on the other hand, stores and releases energy by means of a reversible electrochemical reaction between two electrolyte solutions. There are four leading flow battery technologies: Polysulfide Bromide (PSB), Vanadium Redox (VRB), Zinc Bromine (ZnBr), and Hydrogen Bromine (H-Br) batteries. Flywheels A flywheel is an electromechanical device that couples a motor generator with a rotating mass to store energy for short durations. During a power outage, voltage sag, or other disturbance the motor/generator provides power. Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) Superconducting magnetic energy storage systems store energy in the field of a large magnetic coil with direct current flowing. It can be converted back to AC electric current as needed. Low temperature SMES cooled by liquid helium is commercially available. High temperature SMES cooled by liquid nitrogen is still in the development stage and may become a viable commercial energy storage source in the future. SMES systems are large and generally used for short durations, such as utility switching events. Supercapacitor Supercapacitors (also known as ultracapacitors) are DC energy sources and must be interfaced to the electric grid with a static power conditioner. A supercapacitor provides power during short duration interruptions and voltage sags. Also, by combining a supercapacitor with a battery-based uninterruptible power supply system, the life of the batteries can be extended. Small supercapacitors are commercially available to extend battery life in electronic equipment, but large supercapacitors are still in development and may soon become a viable component of the energy storage field. Compressed Air Energy Storage Compressed air energy storage uses pressurized air as an energy storage medium. An electric motor-driven compressor is used to pressurize the storage reservoir using off-peak energy and air is released from the reservoir through a turbine during on-peak hours to produce energy. The turbine can also be fired with natural gas or distillate fuel. Ideal locations for large compressed air energy storage reservoirs are empty aquifers, abandoned conventional hard rock mines, and abandoned hydraulically mined salt caverns. Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage. PHES involves storing energy in the form of water pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation reservoir by using pumps running on abundant low-cost, off-peak electric power. During periods of high electrical demand or less available power, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power to meet demand. Despite some energy losses during this process, the overall system increases available power and revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest.
  15. 15. 15 Looking at the Report Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Storage in California - Application of the EPRI Energy Storage Valuation Tool to Inform the California Public Utility Commission Proceeding R. 10-12-007, of June 2013, we can see the benefit to cost ratio for some scenarios of energy storage. The methodology created by the EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute, the EPRI Energy Storage Valuation Tool (ESVT) for quantifying the value of grid energy storage opportunities, that simulated scenarios covering three different general use cases, including transmission- connected bulk energy storage, short-duration energy storage to provide ancillary services, and distribution-connected energy storage located at a utility substation, provided results of using a number of technical and economic outputs and summarized in terms of lifetime net present value and breakeven capital cost of energy storage. Under the assumptions provided by the CPUC, the majority of cases returned benefit-to-cost ratios of greater than one, and the majority of cases returned breakeven capital cost of energy storage ranging from $1,000 to $4,000/kW installed. These results represent an early phase of energy storage valuation analysis, quantifying the direct costs and benefits over the lifetime of the energy storage system.( http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbl-eetd_1-17-2014_final.pdf) Summary results from the analyses are provided below in two forms: benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio and breakeven capital cost. B/C ratio is the net present value (NPV) of all direct, quantifiable benefits divided by the NPV of the direct, quantifiable costs of a defined energy storage system providing specific grid services over its lifetime. Breakeven capital cost is the estimated upfront capital cost of a storage system with certain defined performance characteristics, which would result in a B/C ratio of 1, or breakeven net present value Scenario 1: Bulk Energy Storage System The bulk storage (peaker substitution) use case involves the comparison of energy storage to a gas-fired peaker generation unit. This use case considers energy storage that provides grid services that the peaker generation would have access to, including system capacity, energy sales (time-shift/arbitrage for storage), frequency regulation, spinning reserve, and non- spinning reserve. For this use case, the energy storage systems investigated were all 50 megawatts (MW) or larger in size. Base Case Inputs: - Year 2020 - 50MW, 2hr (battery) - CapEx = $1056/kW, $528/kWh - 1 Batt Replacement @ $250/kWh - 11.5% discount rate - 83% RT Efficiency - Energy & A/S prices escalated 3%/yr from CAISO 2011 • Benefit/Cost Ratio = 1.17 • Breakeven Capital Cost: $842/kWh ($1684/kW) in 2013 inflation adjusted dollars
  16. 16. 16 Fig. 2 – Cost Benefit for Scenario 1 Scenario 2: Ancillary Services - Fast Frequency Regulation Only The frequency regulation use case assumes specialized usage of a large battery, flywheel, or other short-duration energy storage technology, to provide frequency regulation service to the CAISO system. Due to the potential for fast and accurate response and ramping capability of energy storage, these systems may generate an enhanced value compared to fossil generators, 3-3 which is expected to be monetizable in the CAISO market as a performance payment, resulting from FERC 755’s frequency regulation pay-for-performance ruling. Base Case Inputs: - Year 2020 - 20MW, 0,25hr (battery) - CapEx = $3112/kW, $778/kWh - 1 Batt Replacement @ $250/kWh - 7yrs depreciation term
  17. 17. 17 • Benefit/Cost Ratio = 1.40 • Breakeven Capital Cost: $1678/kWh ($6712/kWh) in 2013 inflation adjusted dollars Fig. 3 – Cost Benefit for Scenario 2 Scenario 3: Distribution Storage at Substation The distribution energy storage at substation use case assumes a similar usage of the energy storage system to the bulk storage use case, but with the added grid service of a distribution investment deferral. It assumes that the storage is located on the low voltage side of a substation transformer or line that requires an expensive upgrade triggered by slow load growth and infrequent peaks, which can be offset by the energy storage system for a few years. The use case assumes that the storage is also earning value by participating in the capacity and day-ahead energy and ancillary services markets. Due to regulatory issues raised previously, it may not be possible to monetize this use case currently, but the analysis intends to demonstrate the first-order technical potential for energy storage cost-effectiveness.
  18. 18. 18 Base Case Inputs: - Year 2015 - 1MW, 4hr (battery) - CapEx = $2000/kW, $500/kWh - 11.5% discount rate - 83% RT Efficiency Energy & A/S prices escalated 3%/yr from CAISO 2011 - $279/kW upgrade cost - 2% load growth rate • Benefit/Cost Ratio = 1.19 • Breakeven Capital Cost: $866/kWh ($3464/kW) Fig. 4 – Cost Benefit for Scenario 3
  19. 19. 19 Summary of Incentives A research was conducted on the official basis to find the state and federal incentives and programs for loans available for the installation of renewable energy, according listed below: Federal Incentive Program Description Benefit Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit (IRS Form 5695) Established by The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the federal tax credit for residential energy property initially applied to solar-electric systems, solar water heating systems and fuel cells. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 extended the tax credit to small wind-energy systems and geothermal heat pumps, effective January 1, 2008. Other key revisions included an eight-year extension of the credit to December 31, 2016; the ability to take the credit against the alternative minimum tax; and the removal of the $2,000 credit limit for solar-electric systems beginning in 2009. The credit was further enhanced in February 2009 by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which removed the maximum credit amount for all eligible technologies (except fuel cells) placed in service after 2008. A taxpayer may claim a credit of 30% of qualified expenditures for a system that serves a dwelling unit located in the United States that is owned and used as a residence by the taxpayer. Existing homes and new construction qualify. Must be your principal residence. Rental homes and second homes do not qualify. State Incentive Program Description Benefit CSI - Solar PV (Existing Buildings) The California Solar Initiative provides cash back for solar energy systems for existing* homes, as well as existing and new commercial, industrial, government, non-profit, and agricultural properties – within the service territories of the three above-listed IOUs. The CSI has a budget of $2,167 million over 10 years, and the goal is to reach 1,940 megawatts (MW) of installed solar capacity by 2016. This goal includes 1,750 MW from the general market (GM) CSI program, which provides incentives for photovoltaic (PV) and other solar electric generating technologies. The goal also includes 190 MW from the two low-income residential incentive programs, the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) Program and the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) Program. Performance Based Incentives (PBI) is a flat cents-per-kWh payment for all output from a solar energy system over its initial five years of operation. Expected Performance Based Buydown (EPBB) incentives are paid based on verified solar energy system characteristics such as location, system size, shading, and orientation. The amount of the EPBB or PBI incentive depends on which incentive payment levels will be reduced automatically over the duration of the CSI Program in 10 steps, based on the volume of MW of solar reservations issued by each Program Administrator.(CSI Step table in the Appendix B) CSI - Solar PV (New Homes) The California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) is part of the comprehensive statewide solar program, known as the California Solar Initiative. The NSHP provides financial incentives and other support to home builders, encouraging the construction of new, energy efficient solar homes that save homeowners money on their electric bills and protect the environment. Only new residential construction projects qualify for NSHP incentives. It is required that projects meet minimum energy efficiency levels, and applicants are encouraged to achieve energy efficiency levels substantially greater than the current legal standard. The incentive vary depending on the system capacity and the category of the project (see Appendix B)
  20. 20. 20 CSI-Thermal - California State The CSI-Thermal Program offers cash rebates of up to $4,366 on solar water heating systems for single-family residential customers. Multifamily and Commercial properties qualify for rebates of up to $800,000 on solar water heating systems and eligible solar pool heating systems qualify for rebates of up to $500,000. Rebates vary depending on the type of solar water heating system, location, shading and other design factors. A typical homeowner with a solar water heating system displacing natural gas can expect a rebate of about $3,500 at the initial incentive level. Eligible low- income natural gas customers may qualify for higher incentives under the Low Income Program – See Appendix B Loans and Programs PROGRAM SUMMARY APPLICABILITY Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) - California has enacted PACE enabling legislation and there are a number of operational PACE programs, such as CaliforniaFIRST and others in development. Solar customers likewise may have the option to finance their solar systems through their local governments. Local governments can create property tax finance districts to issue loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy such as solar PV systems. PACE allows local governments to provide low-cost, 20-year loans to eligible property owners seeking to install these technologies. The solar customer then pays more on the annual property tax bill to repay the loan. The loans are permanently fixed to real property, so that residents need not worry about their system's break-even point and can pass the loan payments on to subsequent buyers of the property. Energy-Efficient Mortgages Homeowners can take advantage of energy efficient mortgages (EEM) to either finance energy efficiency improvements to existing homes, including renewable energy technologies, or to increase their home buying power with the purchase of a new energy efficient home. The U.S. federal government supports these loans by insuring them through Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or Veterans Affairs (VA) programs. This allows borrowers who might otherwise be denied loans to pursue energy efficiency, and it secures lenders against loan default. $8,000, maximum loan limits can be exceeded by the energy improvements being financed. Solar - Passive, Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Photovoltaics, Daylighting (Residential) Power Purchase Agreements Power Purchase Agreements - Under a "PPA," a third party owns and maintains the customer solar system, selling the kilowatt-hours back to the customer. Thus, customers who opt for a solar PPAtypically have low capital costs and pay only for the electricity their solar systems generate. Both SolarTech and the Rahus Institute offer helpful guides and additional information on solar PPAs. NET ENERGY METERING (NEM) Customers who install renewable energy facilities (1 MW or less) to serve all or a portion of onsite electricity needs are eligible for the net metering program. NEM allows a customer-generator to receive a financial credit for power generated by their onsite system and fed back to the utility. The credit is used to offset the customer's electricity bill. After 12-month cycle, customer may opt to roll over credit indefinitely or to receive payment for credit at a rate equal to the 12-month average spot market price for the hours of 7 am to 5 pm for the year in which the surplus power was generated. (If customer makes no affirmative decision, credit is granted to utility with no compensation for customer.) Geothermal Electric, Solar Thermal Electric, Solar Photovoltaics, Wind (All), Biomass, Municipal Solid Waste, Fuel Cells using Non-Renewable Fuels, Landfill Gas, Tidal, Wave, Ocean Thermal, Wind (Small), Hydroelectric (Small), Anaerobic Digestion, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels
  21. 21. 21 Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Offers incentives to customers who produce electricity with wind turbines, fuel cells, various forms of combined heat and power (CHP) and advanced energy storage. For 2014, the incentive payments range from $0.46/W - $1.83/W depending on the type of system. Retail electric and gas customers of San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) or Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) are eligible for the SGIP. Beginning in May 2012, all technologies previously eligible for the expired Emerging Renewables Program are now eligible for the SGIP program. Originally set to expire at the end of 2011, SB 412 of 2009 extended the expiration date to January 1, 2016, and SB 861 of 2015 further extended the expiration date to January 1, 2021. Systems less than 30 kW will receive their full incentive upfront. Systems with a capacity of 30 kilowatts (kW) or greater will receive half the incentive upfront, and the the other half will be paid over the following five years based on the actual performance. The following technologies will receive the corresponding upfront incentive (or half of this figure if the system is 30 kW or larger). There is no minimum or maximum eligible system size, although the incentive payment is capped at 3 MW. Further, the first megawatt (MW) in capacity will receive 100% of the calculated incentive, the second MW will receive 50% of the calculated incentive, and the third MW will receive 25% of the calculated incentive. Applicants must pay a minimum of 40% of eligible project costs. Projects using the Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) must pay 40% of the eligible project costs after the ITC is subtracted from the project costs (i.e., the SGIP credit is limited to 30% of project costs). Customers who produce electricity with wind turbines, fuel cells, various forms of combined heat and power (CHP) and advanced energy storage U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office (DE-SOL- 0006303) The Loan Programs Office (LPO) has issued the Advanced Fossil Energy Projects Solicitation, which makes up to $8 billion in loan guarantees available to support innovative, advanced fossil energy projects in the U.S. that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases. Eligible projects can utilize any fossil fuel and may come from across the spectrum of production and use, including resource development, energy generation, and end use http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ge othermal/current_opportunities.h tml FORGE Funding Number: DE-FOA-0001091 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) intends to issue, on behalf of the Geothermal Technologies Office, DE-FOA-0000890, a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) entitled "Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE)." http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ge othermal/financial_opps_detail.h tml?sol_id=754 Corporate Tax Credit - Commercial, Industrial, Investor-Owned Utility, Cooperative Utilities, Agricultural The federal business energy investment tax credit available under 26 USC § 48 was expanded significantly by the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (H.R. 1424), enacted in October 2008. This law extended the duration -- by eight years -- of the existing credits for solar energy, fuel cells and microturbines; increased the credit amount for fuel cells; established new credits for small wind-energy systems, geothermal heat pumps, and combined heat and power (CHP) systems; allowed utilities to use the credits; and allowed taxpayers to take the credit against the alternative minimum tax (AMT), subject to certain limitations. The credit was further expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in February 2009. Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Geothermal Electric, Solar Thermal Electric, Solar Thermal Process Heat, Solar Photovoltaics, Wind (All), Geothermal Heat Pumps, Municipal Solid Waste, Combined Heat & Power, Fuel Cells using Non-Renewable Fuels, Tidal, Wind (Small), Geothermal Direct-Use, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels, microturbine Clean renewable energy bonds (CREBs) Clean renewable energy bonds (CREBs) may be used by certain entities -- primarily in the public sector -- to finance renewable energy projects. The list of qualifying technologies is generally the same as that used for the federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC). CREBs may be issued by electric cooperatives, government entities (states, cities, counties, territories, Indian tribal governments or any political subdivision thereof), and by certain lenders. The bondholder receives federal tax credits in lieu of a portion of the traditional bond interest, resulting in a lower effective interest rate for the borrower.* The issuer remains responsible for repaying the principal on the bond. Geothermal Electric, Solar Thermal Electric, Solar photovoltaics, Wind (All), biomass, hydroelectric, Municipal Solid Waste, Landfill gas, Tidal, Wave, Ocean Thermal, Anaerobic digestion
  22. 22. 22 Fannie Mae Green Initiative The Fannie Mae Green Initiative provides owners of multifamily properties (rental or cooperative properties with 5 or more units) with valuable green financing solutions and tools to make smart energy- and water-saving property improvements. Its green financing programs include Green Rewards, Green Preservation Plus, and the Green Building Certification Pricing Break, all of which are eligible for a 10 basis points (0.1%) reduction in the all-in interest rate. Over the life of a 10-year $10 million loan, that could result in a savings of $95,000 or more in interest. All Fannie Mae green loans are securitized as Green Mortgage Backed Securities (Green MBS). - note: Up to 10 basis points lower than standard interest rate. Clothes Washers, Dishwasher, Dehumidifiers, Water Heaters, Lighting, Furnaces, Boilers, Heat pumps, Air conditioners, Caulking/Weather-stripping, Duct/Air sealing, Building Insulation, Windows, Roofs, Comprehensive Measures/Whole Building, Custom/Others pending approval, Insulation, Tankless Water Heater Green Rewards The Green Rewards product feature, launched in 2015, provides up to an additional 5% of loan proceeds by including up to 50% of projected energy and water savings in the loan underwriting. Conventional and affordable multifamily properties including cooperatives, seniors, military, and student housing properties are eligible for the this product feature. The properties may be located anywhere in US, and must be able to project a 20% minimum consumption savings in energy and/or water to qualify for a Green Rewards loan. The selected property upgrades must be completed within 12 months of loan closing. Green Preservation Plus The Green Preservation Plus program, launched in 2011, provides additional loan proceeds to Multifamily Affordable Housing (MAH) properties by allowing up to an 85% Loan-to-Value (LTV), lower Debt-Service-Credit-Ratio (DSCR) up to 5 basis points lower than standard rates, and access to property’s equity amount equal to investments in efficiency. Energy- and water-saving improvements must equal at least 5% of the original mortgage loan amount. Green Building Certification The Green Building Certification Pricing Break provides the 10 basis point pricing break to any acquisition or refinance loan on a conventional or affordable property that has a current, eligible Green Building Certification.
  23. 23. 23 APPENDICES Appendix A. Cost Benefit Analysis – SAM (System Advisory Model) Energy types in SAM SAM inputs Input example Output Value Solar (Photovoltaic) Residential 1. location and resource 2. Module, temperature correction 3. inverter 4. system design: string configuration, tracking and orientation( fixed, 1-axis, 2-axis) 5. shading and snow 6. losses 7. life time(degradation rate) 8. battery storage 9. system costs (direct capital cost, indirect capital cost, operation and maintenance cost) 10. financial parameters 11. incentives 12. electricity rates 13. electricity load 1, Los Angeles Intl arpt Annual energy 6,217 kWh 2, module: SPR-210-BLK-U Inverter: SB4000US 240V Capacity factor 18% 3, Nameplate capacity: 3.875kwdc Tracking&Orientation: Fixed First year kWhAC/kWDC 1,605 kWh/kW 4, Life time( degradation rate): 0.5%per year Performance ratio 0.79 5, Loan term: 25years Loan rate: 5%per year Battery efficiency 0.00% 6, Federal income tax rate: 30% state income tax rate: 7% Levelized COE (nominal) 9.08 ¢/kWh 7, Investment tax credit: federal 30% state 25% Levelized COE (real) 7.18 ¢/kWh 8, Electric load: 6019kwh per year Electricity cost without system $973 Electricity cost with system $194 Net savings with system $779 Net present value $4,348 Payback period 11.7 years Net capital cost $12,747 Equity $0 Debt $12,747
  24. 24. 24 Appendix A. Cost Benefit Analysis – SAM (System Advisory Model) Energy types in SAM SAM inputs Input example Output Value Solar (Photovoltaic) Commercial 1, location and resource 2, Module, temperature correction 3, inverter 4, system design: string configuration, tracking and orientation( fixed, 1-axis, 2-axis) 5, shading and snow 6, losses 7, life time(degradation rate) 8, battery storage 9, system costs (direct capital cost, indirect capital cost, operation and maintenance cost) 10, financial parameters 11, incentives 12, electricity rates 13, electricity load 1, Los Angeles Intl arpt Annual energy 324,248 kWh 2, module: SPR-210-BLK-U Inverter: ST36 (240) 240V Capacity factor 18,5% System Size: 200 kWdc Tracking&Orientation: Fixed First year kWhAC/kWDC 1,623 kWh/kW 4, Life time( degradation rate): 0.5%per year Performance ratio 0.79 5, Loan term: 25years Loan rate: 7.5%per year Battery efficiency No battery 6, Federal income tax rate: 28% state income tax rate:7% Levelized COE (nominal) 7.56 ¢/kWh 7, Investment tax credit: federal 30% state 0% Levelized COE (real) 5.98 ¢/kWh 8, Electric load: 7,646,295 kwh/year Electricity cost without system $1,188,008.00 Electricity cost with system $1,138,912.00 Net savings with system $49,097.00 Net present value $162,954 Payback period 8.9 years Net capital cost $508,966 Equity $0 Debt $508,966
  25. 25. 25 Appendix A. Cost Benefit Analysis – SAM (System Advisory Model) Energy types in SAM SAM inputs Input example Output Value Solar (Thermal) Residential 1, location and resource 2, Module, temperature correction 3, inverter 4, system design: string configuration, tracking and orientation( fixed, 1-axis, 2-axis) 5, shading and snow 6, losses 7, life time(degradation rate) 8, battery storage 9, system costs (direct capital cost, indirect capital cost, operation and maintenance cost) 10, financial parameters 11, incentives 12, electricity rates 13, electricity load 1. Los Angeles Intl arpt (weather location) Annual energy Saved 2,526 kWh 2. Energy usage (family of 4; 2 stories): 12,910kWh/year Capacity factor 8,4% 3. Difuse Sky Model:Isotropic Irradiance:Beam and Difuse Levelized COE (nominal) 33.55 ¢/kWh 4. System Capacity (hot water draw): 73,000kg/year Levelized COE (real) 25.65 ¢/kWh 5. Life time( degradation rate): 0.5%per year Electricity cost without system $3,981 6. Loan term: 20 years Loan rate: 7%/ year Electricity cost with system $3,199 7. Federal income tax rate: 28% state income tax rate: 7% Net savings with system $782 8. Investment tax credit: federal 30% Net present value $1,671 9. Electric load: 9,352 kwh/year Payback period 10,8 Net capital cost $8,060 Equity $1,612 Debt $6,448
  26. 26. 26 Appendix A. Cost Benefit Analysis – SAM (System Advisory Model) Energy types in SAM SAM inputs Input example Output Value Geothermal (Hydrothermal) for the Utility 1, Ambient conditions 2, geothermal resource (reservoir characterization, reservoir parameters) 3, plant and equipment( plant configuration, pump parameters) 4, power block 5, system costs 6, financial parameters 7, time of delivery factors 8, incentives 9, depreciation 1. Weather Location: Los Angeles Intl arpt First Year Energy 135,403,856 kWh 2. Resource: Hydrothermal Capacity Factor 79.40% 3. Total potential: 210MW / Temp 200C PPA price (Year 1) 9.31 ¢/kWh 4. Plant Configuration: 15,000kW / 3 wells PPA price escalation 1.00% 5, Loan term: 18 years Loan rate: 7%per year Levelized PPA price (nominal) 10.11 ¢/kWh 6, Federal income tax rate: 35% state income tax rate:7% Levelized COE (nominal) 9.54 ¢/kWh 7, Investment tax credit: federal 30% state 0% Net present value $7,585,762 Internal rate of return (IRR) 11% Year IRR is achieved 20 Net capital cost $73,048,976 Equity $34,354,316 Size of debt $38,694,664
  27. 27. 27 Appendix A. Cost Benefit Analysis – SAM (System Advisory Model) Energy types in SAM SAM inputs Input example Output Value Geothermal (Enhanced System) for the Utility 1, Ambient conditions 2, geothermal resource (reservoir characterization, reservoir parameters) 3, plant and equipment( plant configuration, pump parameters) 4, power block 5, system costs 6, financial parameters 7, time of delivery factors 8, incentives 9, depreciation 1. Weather Location: Los Angeles Intl arpt t First Year Energy 151,435,664 kWh 2. Resource: Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Capacity Factor 101.00% 3. Total potential: 210MW / Temp 200C PPA price (Year 1) 7.42 ¢/kWh 4. Plant Configuration: 15,000kW / 3 wells PPA price escalation 1.00% 5, Loan term: 18 years Loan rate: 7%per year Levelized PPA price (nominal) 8.03 ¢/kWh 6, Federal income tax rate: 35% state income tax rate:7% Levelized COE (nominal) 7.68 ¢/kWh 7, Investment tax credit: federal 30% state 0% Net present value $5,191,232 Internal rate of return (IRR) 11% Year IRR is achieved 20 Net capital cost $60,697,008 Equity $28,286,626 Size of debt $32,410,382
  28. 28. 28 Appendix B. Cost Benefit Analysis – Other models Energy source Supplier Input example Output Value Geothermal Residential (Case Study Pensylvannia) Location: Pensylvannia Installation Costs $26,000 Geothermal Genius (Joshua Kresge) Year of installation: 2009 Federal Tax Credit 30% jkresge@geothermalgenius.org Home Size: 3,500 sqft Annual Savings $2,820 http://www.geothermalgenius.or g/thinking-of-buying/geothermal- installation-by-the-numbers-in- pennsylvania.html Family of 4 people Annual operating costs $512 System Size: 5 ton vertical loop field Payback 6.5 years Model: Heat Pump Installation Federal Incentive: 30% Previous source of heating: Propane Energy Rate PA 2009: $0,12/kWh Energy source Case Study Input example Output Value Wind Power Feasibility Study 2009 - Single turbine Off coast San Francisco System Size: 3400 MWh Installation Costs $5 Million Equivalent houses: 1,201 O&M costs Range of 17 to 22 ¢/kWh Equivalent Carbon: 1516 tonnes CO2/yr Payback 10.7 years Feasibility Study 2009 - 12 turbine farm Off coast San Francisco System Size: 40 GWh Installation Costs $46.8 Million Equivalent houses: 12,294 O&M costs Range of 17 to 22 ¢/kWh Equivalent Carbon: 18286 tonnes CO2/yr Payback 9.4 years OPD Pelamis San Francisco Wave Power Density: 21 kW/m Installation Costs $279 Million Project Life: 20 years O&M costs $13M Levelized COE 11.2 cents kWh Wave Power Density: 21 kW/m Installation Costs $251 Million
  29. 29. 29 Energetech OWC San Francisco Project Life: 20 years O&M costs $10.6M Levelized COE $9.8 cents/kWh Appendix C. Federal Incentive Figure 2. Federal Incentive available for homeowners to get tax rebates - http://energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit
  30. 30. 30 Appendix D. State Incentive Figure 3. State Incentive available for utilities customers - residential, commercial, government and non-profit - http://gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/about/index.php
  31. 31. 31 Appendix D. State Incentive (continuing) Figure 4. State Incentive available for utilities customers - new residential - http://gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/about/index.php
  32. 32. 32 Appendix D. State Incentive (continuing) Figure 5. State Incentive available for utilities customers - residential and commercial - http://gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/about/index.php

×