CPV Today

A call for major amendment in California's FITs
 
CPVToday.com Special
 
Tam Hunt, Energy Program Director and Attorney, Community Environmental Council recently acknowledged that California still has some weak feed-in tariffs or FITs in place.
 
"The problem is that the prices offered by today's FITs are too weak. We need a better FIT," Hunt said. "The European FITs are based on the cost of generation. A cost-based FIT assesses the range of costs for each renewable energy technology, adds a reasonable profit on top of this range, and sets this sum as the guaranteed payment. California's current "weak FITs" provide the "market price" for compensation, which is the assumed cost of electricity from a new natural gas power plant."
 
"The time is now for a major revision to California's FITs. We need a boost of just a few cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to prompt a huge build-out of solar and wind in our state," Hunt had said.
 
Hunt, who was a speaker during the recently held during CPV Summit USA 2009 in San Diego, spoke about the scope of CPV in an interview with CPVToday.com. Excerpts:
 
CPVToday.com: Quoting you from a recent article, you had mentioned that 20 percent renewables by 2010 isn't nearly enough. The state's energy agencies and the utilities are ramping up planning efforts for achieving 33 percent by 2020, which is currently a goal. Can you provide an insight how do you foresee CPV playing its role in such endeavour of the state and its utilities?
 
Tam Hunt: CPV is very promising due to the expected capital cost savings and higher efficiencies of CPV versus traditional PV and other concentrating solar technologies.
 
The CPV share of California's renewable energy markets will depend very much, of course, on how these possible advantages are realised and how well the market leaders are able to convince project developers to use their technology instead of other technologies.
 
CPVToday.com: There is also a law pending in the Legislature, SB 411. Considering that the arguments by opponents about "clean energy plant" and "clean energy facility" don't take into account that they appear in different codes of the law, can you simplify how would the State regulatory update and Ballot initiatives shape up the development of CPV sector in the State?
 
SB 411 died last year. A better bill, AB 64, is now pending, and this bill would require the utilities to achieve 35 percent renewables by 2020. If this bill passes, as well as other pending renewable energy bills such as a more robust feed-in tariff (cost-based vs. market price referent-based, as is the case with California's existing limited feed-in tariff), the future of CPV and other renewable energy technologies looks very good.
 
CPVToday.com: A section of the industry says supporters of Proposition 7 feel the language is tight and that the 30 MW issue is being exploited by utilities that don't want to increase their procurement targets. But according to you, the 30 megawatt issue is not an issue at all though it's a complicated issue. Can you clarify the same?
 
Tam Hunt: Prop 7 failed last November, so there is not much use in revisiting these issues. Fortunately, most of the positive features of Prop 7 are now included in AB 64, the new Renewables Portfolio Standard bill that is pending in the Legislature.
 
CPVToday.com: Talking of the industry, when compared with solar thermal approaches, CPV provides a qualitatively different approach, typically with lower water usage, greater flexibility in size of installation, and the ability to respond more quickly when the sun returns on a cloudy day. The tracking used for CPV also implies relatively higher electricity production per installed kilowatt, compared with fixed flat plate. What's your viewpoint regarding the CSP vs CPV growth or technology superiority?
 
Tam Hunt: The degree to which CPV's natural advantages allow it become a market leader will depend on the market leaders' ability to build their own projects and to convince project  developers to use CPV technology instead of alternatives. I'm optimistic they can.
 
CPVToday.com: About CPV, it is said that it will be a huge challenge for the industry as a whole as it includes a monumental increase in field deployment capability, manufacturing capability, supply chain, etc.  At the same time extensive reliability and some R&D work will continue. How do you assess all this going forward?
 
Tam Hunt: I'm very optimistic because the stars are now aligned in terms of international, national, state and local climate change and energy policies.
 
The time for serious action is now and the technology development curves for CPV and other renewable energy technologies are poised for major success. There will be many problems with large-scale deployment of CPV, as there are with any new technology, but it seems clear that these problems will be resolved and the CPV market will very likely grow to many billions of dollars in coming decades.
 
CPVToday.com: In your opinion, what CPV companies are really going to be able to sell power for and what should the industry be aiming to offer to utilities?
 
Tam Hunt: I won't opine on particular companies, but there are a number of promising companies and technologies in this space. The CPV industry should aim to offer the least cost and most reliable power to utilities, either through Renewable Portfolio Standard contracts, bilateral contracts, AB 1969 feed-in tariffs, QF contracts, or any other future option that may be realized.
 
The keys are cost and reliability - the utilities are scrambling to deploy affordable and reliable renewable energy technologies to meet state mandates. It's a sellers market if the product is good.