Solar Southwest Florida

I am seeing an uptick in requests about Alternating Current Photovoltaic (ACPV) Modules. ACPV solar panels are traditional solar electric panels that have an inverter affixed to the back. The module assembly is UL listed as a complete assembly, and is essentially an appliance. Rather than output DC power that needs to be converted to AC for use in your home, the appliance puts out AC energy that can be connected directly to your home’s wiring system.

ACPV Solar Module with Microinverter Attached

Despite what manufacturer’s may say, these are not the same as the “plug-and-play” solar panel concept, which doesn’t really exist. ACPV modules are still required to be connected to dedicated branch circuit wiring and fall under many of the same National Electric Code (NEC) requirements found under Chapter 690 of the NEC. They require a qualified professional to install, and are no less dangerous than a typical solar photovoltaic module. Some have argued that ACPV panels are the next evolution from the current microinverter revolution. Microinverters convert each solar panel’s energy to usable AC energy, but are not integral with the panel. They mount beneath the panel on rails or to the module frame in some cases.

So what are the pros and cons of ACPV solar panels?

Pros

• Simplified installation wiring – no DC disconnects required or DC combiner boxes.
• Simplified installation mounting – no microinverter to mount on rails or central inverter to mount on wall.
• Elimination of many NEC grounding requirements.
• Per-panel maximum power point tracking eliminates module mismatch losses, increasing energy harvest over string inverters.
• Reduces impact of shading on solar arrays. Allows installation on multiple orientations and pitches.
• No high-voltage DC electricity on roof, reducing shock hazard and potentially increasing firefighter safety.
• No high-voltage DC conductors run through attics and walls, possibly reducing arc-fault potential and severity and fire risk.
• Reduced chance for DC ground faults.
• Easy identification of under-performing and failed components.
• Per-module performance monitoring.
• Inverter warranty length typically exceeds string inverters (but not traditional microinverters).

Cons

• Failure of the PV module or attached inverter requires replacement of complete assembly, increasing shipping costs and complexity of service.
• Proprietary connectors on inverters – questions about long-term serviceability and availability of components.

At first glance it would seem that the pros greatly outweigh the cons. However, many of the pros are achievable with traditional DC solar modules with “traditional” microinverters (the word “traditional” is in quotes because microinverters are in their product life-cycle infancy, but this pair is essentially the same thing as a disassembled ACPV module). More importantly the cons offer significant questions about what happens down the road if warranty service is required.

While the DC component of an ACPV module is generally very reliable, there are still questions by many about the long-term failure rate of the microinverter component. With traditional microinverters, the inverter component can be replaced separately from the module. Furthermore, a DC module is likely to work with future technology iterations and can always be converted for use in different systems. The proprietary nature of an ACPV module requires that a matching replacement component be installed. Technically an ACPV module could be converted to a traditional DC module, but it’s unclear if it would be properly listed for that intended use and thus be code compliant for any installation other than an ACPV system.

Since the panel and the associated microinverter are manufactured by different companies, if the inverter manufacturer goes out of business, I assume the panel manufacture would be on the hook to produce replacement parts for warranty service. This could be difficult to do, but I assume that manufacturers have thought that through (I hope). Remember, you would presumably have to return the entire ~38″ x 65″, 50 pound solar module for warranty service to the solar panel manufacturer.

Conceptually, I love the idea of the ACPV module. It is one step closer to “plug-and-play” solar. It makes the job of solar installers very easy. Many of the great advantages of microinverters are incorporated, because ACPV modules are essentially microinverters permanently mounted to the panel. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend ACPV modules at this time due to questions about future serviceability and availability. Some of my colleagues will make the same argument against “traditional” microinverters, but I am convinced that a separate solar panel and inverter makes more sense at this time than an ACPV appliance. If the future of microinverters is bleak, and I don’t think it is, then at least there will be better options for servicing existing microinverter systems. The few cons of ACPV modules outweigh the many pros in my opinion when there are microinverter options available.

If you are convinced about the benefits of microinverters over central/string inverters, I would recommend going the microinverter route and avoiding ACPV solutions at this time.

As expected, Cape Coral passed the Public Service Tax measure on April 29, 2013. The tax impacts every utility electric customer in the City. The more you use electricity, the more tax you pay.

As I noted in my earlier post, solar energy producers can avoid tax on every kilowatt-hour they reduce or produce with solar energy.

The City of Cape Coral released an online calculator that has a few deficiencies. Most importantly to me is that the calculator ignores solar producing customers using LCEC’s netmetering program (both commercial and residential). If you are a small commercial (non-demand charge) or residential customer with solar electric panels and you have a netmetered account, you pay different rates than standard utility customers. As a result, your tax calculation is different. The City’s calculator only shows large commercial (demand charge) rates, and not small commercial rates.

The good news is that there isn’t much tax difference for netmetered customers, who often pay lower rates than those who don’t produce solar energy. In fact, many residential netmetered customers fall below the 500 kWh tax threshold, so they will pay no tax except tax on the customer charge, or $1.35. Netmetered customers with an energy surplus in any month will also pay just $1.35!

I felt obligated to produce a better calculator that could be used by most commercial and residential netmetered customers who are producing solar energy. This calculator should match Cape Coral’s calculator for residential customers without solar electricity.

If the calculator does not appear below, you may access it directly at: http://szumlanski.com/PST/

Assumptions and Disclaimers: This calculator is based on the 7% Public Service Tax as approved on April 29, 2013 and utility rates are accurate as of May 1, 2013 to the best of my knowledge. SolarSouthwestFlorida and it’s author are not responsible for and errors or omissions in this calculator.  Please use with caution. Results are for approximate reference only. Rounding errors may exist. The City of Cape Coral’s office calculator can be accessed by clicking here.

I receive monthly energy production reports from every one of Fafco Solar’s customers that has an Enphase microinverter based solar energy system. It’s great to see at a glance if systems are performing as expected, especially relative to the prior month and relative to other systems of similar size.

It’s already April, and the numbers for March are in. There is a link below to a typical monthly energy report that I get via email. This is a summary report that has a lot more data available behind it on the Enphase Enlighten portal online.

Monthly Energy Production Report

It shows what I’m seeing across the board, and what is expected for this time of year. Solar electric production was up 10-20% in March over February in Southwest Florida.

I can’t say enough about the importance of monitoring solar energy output, identifying shading and soiling issues, along with ensuring equipment continues to meet specifications. Enphase makes this easy by providing rich data sets and graphic representation of each microinverter’s output. Below is a graph for the same system in the report above for March, 2013.

Daily Solar Energy Produced

You can essentially “tell the weather” with a solar energy monitoring system. March 12 was clearly the cloudiest day. You can dig even deeper into the daily power production over time. Check out the difference between March 12 and March 27, the best day of the month for energy production.

March 12, 2013 was mostly cloudy with a bit of sun at mid-day.

March 27, 2013 was a nearly picture-perfect day for solar energy in SW Florida.

The solar industry is relatively young and many new contractors entered the market in the last several years. It’s not uncommon to find the wrong parts used in a solar electric installation. I get to see plenty of solar energy systems installed by other contractors after they are long gone. Some mistakes are understandable (and common). Others are comical (from my point of view). Some are downright dangerous. There are a number of reason this occurs:

• Inexperienced solar contractors simply do not know what parts exist, so they use a common incompatible part.
• Electrical contractors may not be highly experienced with DC electrical components.
• Specialized parts are not available for purchase locally or require long lead times.
• Some parts seem inexplicably high in price, so cheaper alternatives are used.

The picture below (left) shows a strain relief fitting that is not listed for the environment in which it is installed, and is intended for a single wire to pass into an electrical enclosure. The rubber seal is cracking and the metal parts are clearly corroding. Most importantly, water can get into this enclosure because the seal is intended to tighten against one cable or wire.

It’s an easy mistake to make. Multiple hole strain relief fittings are available, but are certainly not well known, and are not widely available, at least in Southwest Florida. Some local electrical supply houses do carry single and multiple conductor strain reliefs, but they are often the wrong size (usually to large) to handle small wires from photovoltaic panels. Strain relief fittings made from nylon with up to 13 holes are not hard to find online, but are not common in local stores.

Part procurement takes a lot of planning, and local solar contractors need to carry an inventory of common parts that are needed in solar electric installations. Knowledge of the availability and suitability of the right parts for solar is key to a long lasting solar energy installation.

It’s just one more reason to hire a Southwest Florida licensed solar contracting professional that does solar installations as a primary line of business.

FPL Solar Rebate Demand High, Supply Low

FPL made an important and appreciated change to their solar rebate program for this round of funding. They said they would take applications after the funds were exhausted to put applicants on a standby list, as many customers do not go through with installations. I was surprised to see that the standby list was limited, and applications were eventually rejected.

That really does not make sense, unless FPL does not really want to know how many people want rebates but cannot get one. Wouldn’t it make sense to take all applications in the order received? That way we could gauge demand and adjust the rebate amount accordingly to maximize the installed capacity with the limited rebate funds! Why cut off accepting applications at all?!

While it looks like we were able to secure several rebates for Fafco Solar’s customers this time around, the system is still frustratingly broken. I am certain that so many more people would go solar if the rebate program was fixed and the rebate amount was more in line with demand for rebate funds.

Business PV funding was still available, with $715,000 still out there as of 9:00 am. I find that interesting, indicating that commercial PV installations aren’t seeing the same feverish demand for rebate funds. That’s strange because business customers are typically making decisions on an ROI basis, and the ROI for a business can be sensational with the rebate funds.

As expected, plenty of rebate money is still available for residential and commercial solar water heating, and funding will likely be available for months.

NBC-2 News reported that a smart car charger caused a fire in Estero, FL yesterday causing $200,000 to a home. From the story I gather that the homeowner installed the smart charger himself. While I can’t say if he was qualified or if the fire was caused by installation errors or product failure, it brings an important issue to the forefront – electric car charging is going to bring a whole host of problems for home electrical systems.

The problem is that many homes already have fully loaded main distribution panels. Several tandem breakers may be installed to accommodate new circuits for things like lighting, appliances, and pool equipment added after the home was built. And electric car chargers use a LOT of power! For example, the Leviton Evr-Green 320 Charging Station is rated for 32A @ 240V, or 7,700 watts. The only appliances in your home that carry higher ratings are likely your electric range and the electric heater in your air conditioning system. Adding a Charging Station is no trivial matter in terms of power consumption.

People are getting interested in solar charging for electric vehicles at home. It doesn’t make much sense to install a solar-direct charging system because the solar panels would not function when the car is not at the home. It makes much more sense to install a grid-interconnected solar energy system and charge the vehicle with the home’s existing electrical distribution system. That way, excess electricity provided by solar panels is sold back to the utility company. Adding solar to a home can increase the power capacity of the home, but only if done correctly and safely in accordance with applicable codes.

A Charging Station can be safely added to any home with the right distribution equipment, and it doesn’t need to break the bank. It may be possible to simply add a new (dedicated) circuit for the Charging Station. Adding a second main distribution panel is sometimes the best option. This must be done by a licensed electrical contractor, and requires pulling the utility meter. A load analysis should be performed to make sure added circuits do not overload distribution equipment. Doing this during a solar energy installation is an ideal time. Since the solar electric system needs to be interconnected to the utility, updating the home’s capacity concurrently can be accomplished with minimal extra effort (cost). Better yet, some of the new distribution equipment may be eligible for the 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit because it is necessary and part of the solar energy production system.

A solar electric system can be used to offset the additional electricity that your home will use when you purchase an electric vehicle. (Side note: remember when purchasing an electric vehicle that you are still using fossil fuel to power it! If you plan to purchase an electric vehicle, be sure to let your solar installer know so provisions can be made for the future.

My heart goes out to the Schardein family. Losing a home to fire must be devastating. Hopefully the damage is fully insured and the impact is minimal.

It sounds like a great idea – buy an all-electric vehicle like the Nissan Leaf and get off fossil fuels to save money and the environment. However, many people fail to think about where the electricity comes from!

FPL’s Electricity is Roughly 2/3 Fossil Fuel Based

FPL generates about 2/3rds of it’s electricity from Natural Gas. That’s a fossil fuel. In addition, 1/5th comes from nuclear power. So ask yourself – is your electric vehicle really electric, or is it just another fossil fuel vehicle disguised as an eco-friendly alternative?

Granted, electric vehicles use less fossil fuel because FPL uses fuels much more efficiently than a typical vehicle’s internal combustion engine could ever dream. However, the fact of the matter is that your electric vehicle is probably still largely dependent on fossil fuels! Is that what you intended?

The solution is obviously solar electricity, especially here in Southwest Florida. If you purchase an electric vehicle, or plan to in the future, why not upgrade your home with a solar electric system to offset the additional electricity you will consume with your electric car? Then you can truly call your car “eco-friendly” and a “solar powered vehicle!”

Based on the Nissan Leaf’s EPA ratings, the vehicle will consume 4.1 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity per year if driven 12,000 miles. To put that in perspective, the average LCEC and FPL residential customer consumes about 14 mWh of electricity per year. The electric car would increase the average utility customer’s electricity usage by almost 30%. To offset the extra 4.1 mWh of electricity consumed, a solar energy system rated at approximately 3.0 kilowatt (kW) would be required. At today’s prices with the Federal Tax Credit, not including any utility incentives, you could get a 3.0 kW solar electric system for around $10,000 under ideal circumstances.

By installing a solar electric system for an electric vehicle you would effectively be getting 25+ years of “free” electricity required to operate your electric vehicle, and would completely offset your fossil fuel use. If I told you that you could prepay for 25+ years of gasoline for your current vehicle for $10,000, would you make that investment? You would be crazy not to!

FPL will open up the next round of solar rebate applications on October 16, 2012 at 8:30 am. Rebate applicants will need a licensed solar contractor to install their system, and are advised to contact Fafco Solar urgently to get an evaluation, conditional contract, and in the queue for a rebate application submission.

The total funding for this round of rebates is $9 million.

FPL took one of FlaSEIA’s recommendations and is allowing applications to go through once the available funds are exhausted. If successful applicants do not pursue an installation, the next applicant will be offered a rebate approval. That’s a step in the right direction for the beleaguered rebate program.

This article could have easily been called “Why Florida Residents Won’t Drive Solar Electric Cars.” That’s not to say that we won’t one day drive cars with some kind of energy storage (batteries) that is recharged by the sun. It’s just that we won’t be charging the battery using solar power generated on the roof of the car.

Theoretically, we should be able to build a battery with adequate capacity that is light and small enough to suit an electric car that meets our expectations, and that’s the direction in which I think we are heading. The problem with solar energy is that it is highly variable in nature, not particularly predictable on a short-term scale, and requires a large surface area to produce much energy.

You might be asking, “What about efficiency improvements?”

Today’s commercially viable solar panels top out at around 20% efficiency, meaning that they can convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting a given area on the earth’s surface to electricity. Just for grins, let’s assume that one day we will reach 100% efficiency with photovoltaic technology, and be able to convert 100% of the sun’s energy into electricity for a given area. Here are some generous assumptions we can make for some basic calculations:

• 1,400 watts per square meter hits the earths surface.
• 100% of the sun’s energy in a given area can be converted to usable energy to propel the vehicle.
• Southwest Florida gets the equivalent of approximately 6 sun-hours per day on average.
• The vehicle is about 7′ wide by 15′ long, or about 10 square meters.
• We can cover the vehicle 100% with solar panels.
• The panels are mounted at an optimal tilt angle regardless of what direction the vehicle is travelling.
• We never drive or park in shade.
• The battery technology has no efficiency losses – 100% of the solar power goes into the battery, and 100% is usable.
• No other electrical needs (lights, air conditioning, etc.)

If all of these outlandish assumptions were true, we could generate 84 kilowatt-hours of usable electricity on the average day (not the worst rainy day, mind you). How far and how fast would that 84 kilowatt-hours get you? Today’s Nissan Leaf  can get around 250 miles on 84 kilowatt-hours of energy according to the EPA! Sounds good, right?

Future cars could improve on aerodynamic drag, weight, and friction, and increase the range quite a bit. Sounds even better, right? Before we get too far, let’s remember that we are dealing with some crazy-generous assumptions.

With today’s photovoltaic technology, a reasonable estimate for actual solar energy production on a 10 square meter vehicle would be  closer to 8 kilowatt-hours. Even if batteries were 100% efficient and the Nissan Leaf became 4 times more efficient, that would still only move the car about 100 miles a day on solar power mounted on the vehicle.

Get to the Point!

There will be tremendous improvements in vehicle, battery, and solar electric efficiency in the future – perhaps the near future. The point is that the amount of solar energy hitting a small moving target on the earth’s surface is simply not enough to get the distance and performance demanded for the transportation needs of the vast majority of us, even in Southwest Florida where sunshine is abundant. The physics behind solar powered cars does not point to a practical solution.

Ultimately, I do think we will all be driving mostly electrically propelled cars. There will be improvements in vehicle design and battery efficiency. The source of the energy required to “fuel” our vehicles may very well be solar. Roof and ground mounted solar can provide the required energy for electric vehicles today. However,  solar mounted on the vehicle of the future, if any, will provide only a nominal amount of the energy needed for our vehicles.

Are there reasons to explore vehicle-mounted solar panels? Absolutely! There are some applications where this could be very beneficial, like short-distance travel vehicles or where there is no readily accessible fuel or charging source. Solar on vehicles could extend range some amount or power accessories in the vehicle. Solar energy and the future of electric vehicles are intertwined, but not the way that you may have thought or hoped.

As if FPL’s solar rebate program didn’t run out of funds fast enough the last time around, Tampa Electric’s Solar Photovoltaic allotment of rebates evaporated in one minute – less time than FPL applicants found themselves having to secure a lucrative rebate. TECO’s solar rebate program, which released funds this morning at 10 am, was expected to run out of funds on the first day like the FPL program, but this is a record time for rebates to be snatched up.

This is NOT a “first-come, first served” application process like the utility companies would have you believe. It is basically a lottery, but a lottery that can legally be rigged by companies who have figured out the technology required to get a leg up when the rebate application system goes live.

The process is senseless. The utilities are hoodwinking the public. The real goal is not to “help utility customers get into solar energy.” If it were, the rebate amounts would be sensible, and the programs would benefit a broader customer base than the lucky few who get a windfall rebate approval.

The next round of funding is coming for FPL customers in Southwest Florida. If you live in Naples, Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, or any of FPL’s SWFL service area, I highly advise that you contact your solar dealer urgently and try your hand at getting a solar rebate. The rebate could pay for half of your system, and the Federal Tax Credit can cover a big chunk of what’s left. You need to act NOW!

P.S. Fafco Solar is a good choice for a licensed local solar dealer!    (239) 574-1500.

License: CVC56701

What was once true has become a myth. In years past, it didn’t make much sense to install solar panels (solar electric/photovoltaic modules) from a financial standpoint without generous subsidies, rebates, and incentives. The payback period was too long for most investors (see my article on the folly of the payback metric here). Except for those lucky enough to access a rebate, the numbers just didn’t make sense.

Solar Panel Price Plummet. Source: Solarbuzz

In case you haven’t heard, solar panels have plummeted in price. We’re talking about a >75% drop in wholesale and retail prices in the last three years. Total installed costs have been cut in half. Meanwhile, electricity rates continue to rise. It’s the perfect storm for making solar panel installations feasible without most subsidies.

I say “most subsidies” because there is an incentive that exists today that is still important to make most installations financially attractive. The Federal Investment Tax Credit is essentially a 30% rebate on the total installed cost of a solar energy system. This incentive is in place until the end of 2016, and covers both individual and corporate taxpayers. If you have taxable income, you can access the tax credit! What’s interesting about this tax credit is that it pays for itself in terms of the government’s investment. In fact, a recent study concludes that the government gets a 10% return on its investment from the tax credit.

In Florida there is no state rebate available. Other states have eliminated subsidies or only offer very nominal incentives. Florida utilities have very limited rebate programs that are either inconsequential in the grand scheme of the price of a system or are so limited in funding that your chance of obtaining the rebate is slim-to-none. But that’s OK!

A big area of discussion at Solar Power International 2012 in Orlando this month was the disappearing subsidies, and how the solar industry needs to move away from requiring handouts. Indeed, the solar industry has grown substantially in the past few years despite disappearing subsidies. The plummeting price of the product we offer is an obvious key. As keynote speaker, former President Bill Clinton said, we in the industry need to tell our story. This is the story – solar is now financially attractive without [most] rebates, incentives, and subsidies!

Florida “suffers” from a lack of incentives that are still seen in other states. Those states, like California, New Jersey, Arizona, and New York, have seen a meteoric rise in solar panel installations. Florida has lagged the industry significantly. Admittedly, the local solar industry has done a poor job of getting the word out. It’s time to put forth an effort to tell the public our story and get the solar industry in Florida back on track. Let’s compete for our rightful title, The Sunshine State!

After an already depressed market in the first quarter of 2012, Florida’s solar electric installations fell to 18th among states in the second quarter of 2012 according to the Solar Energy Industries Association’s quarterly report. After rising to 14th among states in Q1 of this year, Florida regressed below it’s 2011 ranking of 17th among states. This follows a large spike in national solar electric installations with Florida installations remaining stagnant.

SEIA Report On Solar Installations Q2 2012

To blame, in my opinion, is:

• Continued disruption caused by the FPL rebate program
• The lack of a cohesive policy in the state regarding renewable energy
• Lack of availability of financing and reasonable long-term financing rates for solar energy home improvements
• An incorrect public perception that solar energy is only viable with generous rebates (said another way: the industry does a poor job of marketing)

Fortunately, Florida still has a thriving solar pool heating industry, which is not covered in the rankings. Solar thermal, including solar pool heat and solar domestic water heating, is an important contributor to Florida’s solar industry. Solar Photovoltaics (PV or soalr electric) are mainly addressed in the report. While to report is not encouraging, historically low prices are leading to increased installation of solar electric systems without incentives, but Florida is falling further behind other states with more progressive incentives and policies.

SunPower’s Groundbreaking New Warranty

SunPower Corp. announced a groundbreaking warranty today at Solar Power International. SunPower’s Maxeon cell photovoltaic modules will now have a full 25 year power output AND product warranty, an industry first.

Highlights of the warranty:

• Material defects & workmanship warranty increases from 10 years to 25 years.
• Power output will be at least 95% of the minimum peak power rating for the first 5 years, and decline by no more that 0.4% per year for the following 20 years.
• Limited warranty covers transportation costs (both ways), removal costs, and reinstallation costs.

The new warranty is backdated to July 1, 2012 for customers who recently had SunPower solar energy systems installed.

Fafco Solar is an authorized SunPower dealer in Southwest Florida through it’s relationship with Abacus Energy Group. LLC.

The Florida Solar Energy Industries Association (FlaSEIA) is voicing the solar industry’s dissatisfaction with the FPL Solar Rebate program. While touted as successful by Florida’s largest utility and a spectacular windfall for a few lucky rebate recipients, the solar rebate program has been disastrous for Florida utility ratepayers, solar energy contractors, and solar suppliers.

FPL and FlaSEIA are at odds over the FPL Solar Rebate Program

Solar Southwest Florida is in receipt of a series of letters between FlaSEIA’s former President, Bill Gallagher, and Florida Power & Light’s Manager of New Product Development, Oscar Gans. The letters detail results from the latest distribution of 2012 rebate funds, FlaSEIA’s position on the rebate program, and FPL’s response. There is some very important and disturbing information contained in the letters, and based on FPL’s response I am not confident that they share the same sense of urgency about the problems with the program.

There are really three overriding factors in this debate over the program in my opinion:

• The flawed reservation system and procedures that creates an unfair playing field for solar contractors and rebate applicants.
• The rebate amount is seriously out of balance with demand for those funds.
• The program does not accomplish the stated goal, which is to increase the number of photovoltaic energy systems installed in the state.

The Reservation System

Case in point for the flawed reservation system is that one contractor was able to secure 27 of the 119 approved rebate applications (23%). The top three contractors accounted for 50% of the approved applications, and the top five hoarded nearly two-thirds. The top four solar contractors for commercial systems garnered 71% of the business, with only seven other contractors securing one or two approvals. Only 26 contractors (out of hundreds of solar and electrical contractors licensed to do installations) were able to secure any rebate approvals.

The reservation system is an online application process that requires the FPL customer to log into their account and enter system details to an online form. In reality, contractors are asking account holders for their account information so they can have employees fill in the technical data required. The application forms go live at 8:30 am on the application date, and then it’s a race to see who can type fastest.

In the last round of funding, the funds were exhausted in under two minutes and further applications were rejected!

How did some contractors fare so much better than others? It is quite apparent that some have figured out how to use form-filling software to quickly enter rebate applications. While that is not cheating, illegal, or immoral in any way, it puts others at a severe disadvantage and give individuals virtually no chance of success in securing their own rebate approval.

Full disclosure to dispel any thoughts that this is just sour grapes: My employer had 11 people frantically entering rebate applications, and we had two people type fast enough to secure approvals, one of which went through with purchasing a system.

There are other problems with the reservation system, like not continuing to take applications after funds are exhausted so that unused funds can go to the next applicant in the queue. Another problem is not requiring that the applicant have serious intentions of actually going forward with an installation. The main problem at this point is the skewed distribution of the funds – the fairness factor. A lottery process has been suggested by others, but that isn’t a process through which industry members can build reliable and predictable sales (read: jobs).

Supply and Demand

Why did the rebate funds run out in under two minutes? Because the rebate amount at $2 per watt is insanely generous in today’s photovoltaic market. It’s no secret that the price of photovoltaic modules themselves is now under $1 per watt. The total installed price being offered by retailers in Florida is well under $6 per watt, and can be under $4 per watt in many circumstances. The combination of a 30% tax credit and the utility rebate exceeding 70% of the remaining cost in many cases makes the return on investment look like stealing power from your neighbor. There is no reasonable financial argument against installing a solar electric system if you are able to secure a rebate for your home or business.

Unfortunately, the rebate funds are limited, so the number of applications approved (119 in the last round) falls grossly short of the demand.

To put things into further perspective, the State of Florida ran a wildly successful $2 per watt rebate program a few years ago when systems were selling at $8-$10 per watt retail price. Because of the plummeting cost of photovoltaic panels and components over the last few years, it is now cheaper to buy a system without rebates than it was a few years ago with rebates. Even at “those prices” a $2 per watt rebate amount was so successful that the State ran out of funds and ultimately paid many people just 52 cents on the dollar. On a good note, the FPL program guarantees that approved applications will be paid as long as the program standards are met.

The bottom line is that the rebate amount is far too generous. People are reluctant to install a system without rebates when their neighbor received a $20,000 handout from the utility. They are far more likely to roll the dice in the next round of funding and hope for a windfall.

Other states and utilities offer far less generous rebate programs and are seeing huge levels of solar energy adoption. For example, Arizona utilities offer rebates in the range of 20 to 50 cents per watt. The programs are wildly successful and at least one utility has exhausted funding for this year.

You will see in the letters that FPL spent $3 million advertising the solar rebate program. It clearly did not need to be advertised. This amount put toward actually installing solar energy systems would have resulted in 1.5 megawatts of additional capacity for ratepayers, and far more if the rebate amount was in line with demand.

The Goal

The stated goal of the FPL Solar Rebate Program is to increase the adoption of distributed solar energy installation in the state of Florida. This rebate program is effectively capping the installed capacity in FPL’s service area, having the exact opposite effect! If $4.5 million is actually reaching ratepayers as noted in FlaSEIA’s letter, then simple math indicates that 2.25 megawatts of capacity will be installed. As stated above, and proven by ample anecdotal evidence, other ratepayers are not going to proceed without a rebate if they know a rebate program is in place.

To put this in perspective, the state of New Jersey saw 173.8 megawatts of capacity installed in the first quarter of 2012 alone.

Statistically, Florida fell to 17th among states in 2011 for total installed solar electric capacity, down from 8th place, right at the time that FPL’s rebate program came into existence. In the first quarter of 2012, the total capacity installed in Florida was a paltry 2.8 megawatts. This was 14th among states, and only 1.8% of the amount of solar capacity installed in the top ranked state, New Jersey.

FlaSEIA recommends that the rebate amount be reduced to 50 cents per watt, which would result in a four-fold increase in the capacity installed. I believe a more aggressive reduction is in order – 25 cents per watt. I truly believe that and eight-fold increase in installed capacity is possible with today’s current retail price of solar photovoltaic systems and a 25 cent per watt rebate. Furthermore, a small rebate amount will not dissuade ratepayers who are not lucky enough to obtain an approved rebate application.

Conclusion

The FPL Solar Rebate Program is clearly flawed. FlaSEIA, with its limited funding and power, is admirably taking the industry’s complaints to FPL and the Public Service Commission. Moreover, this is a battle for the Florida electricity ratepayer who is willing and able to install a solar photovoltaic system, but is stymied by the process and conflicted over whether to proceed without a rebate handout. The fact of the matter is that Floridians were installing solar energy systems in larger quantities while systems were sold at higher net costs before the rebate program came into existence.

Am I asking for the rebate program to go away? Certainly not. I do believe utility rebates encourage the adoption of solar energy. Unfortunately, because of the way this program is being administered, and the supply and demand being so far out of whack, FPL’s implementation is having disastrous results on the industry (jobs), and is having the direct opposite effect as the stated goal.

The series of letters can be viewed here:

FPL Letter May 29, 2012

FlaSEIA Letter July 30, 2012

FPL Letter August 14, 2012

Most people are surprised to learn that a typical solar photovoltaic (electric) system does not provide power when the utility company electricity goes down. Most solar photovoltaic systems are grid-interconnected, and in a way, grid-dependent. Due to the variable nature of solar panel output, having power during utility outages requires a battery.

Let me say up front that batteries are relatively expensive, dirty, dangerous, short-lived, inefficient, heavy, and big. That’s why I typically don’t recommend battery based solar energy systems. However, I was reminded recently that I should listen to our customers and understand a little better what their goals are. There may be a good application for battery technology in many circumstances. For example, I shouldn’t dismiss a customer who just wants to have their refrigerator powered by solar energy. This may be a great fit for solar energy!

Boats and RVs have been using 12V or 24V DC refrigerators for many years, and some models can be extremely efficient. What if you could have a small refrigerator with one or two solar panels and a few batteries. Perhaps this would fulfill the essential refrigeration functions required during and after a storm. I could be done relatively inexpensively and be made reliable with proper system design.

An expensive part of a battery based solar energy system is the electronics to convert the solar panels’ DC energy to AC energy for household appliances and lighting. System design, engineering, permitting, and wiring (or rewiring) also add substantially to the cost. If you are able to identify clearly what you want to power during an outage, it can make a battery-based solar energy system a much more cost effective and reasonable solution.

You can do just about anything with a battery based solar photovoltaic system – for a price. Once you break it down the the real essentials, the concept becomes a lot more feasible. I’m ready to hear your battery backup needs, and I promise I won’t be so quick to dismiss the idea!