Do these companies who quote these solar & wind projects have to stand behind the savings numbers that they worked out, to get the financial incentives from the sources to build these projects out?
When we submit a quote for our equipment, it has to be submitted with a calculation sheet stating what the energy saving are going to be as well as the reduction in CO2 emissions.
Our clients would submit this information, and knew if approved that testing would be done after installation, confirming the savings. We were always very positive and sure in the numbers we submitted, but also realized that if for some reason our equipment would not or did not pass the test, our clients would not get the incentive money - and they would then look at us to remove our equipment and refund everything that they had paid us.
It never happened, but right now I sure am glad we were not selling solar or wind systems.
Maybe it is different with government? Maybe with them, even with poor or negative results, you are still entitled to the "trophy" because of effort?
I bought a ground-mounted solar array for my last house in 2017, and it definitely didn’t perform as advertised. I got a federal tax credit and low-interest loan from NYSERDA when I bought it and received net metering through a PPA with my local utility. The utility didn’t hold me to the PPA, and no one else cared what the array generated. These were strictly incentives for being virtuous, not tied to the pesky realities of generating electricity. I sold the array with the house (the buyer didn’t really want it; I still owed $20K on it, so I had to pay that out of my sale proceeds). As for community and grid-scale solar, no, they’re not required to meet the generation quantities they specify. The state treats any solar generation as a precious commodity. Developers receive incentives on whatever electricity their projects manage to generate; they’re less than they might be when the projects generate less than projected, but they’re still quite generous.
At some point, which drives the question when, the consumers wil recognize the charlatans promoting wild and solar are lying. The solar panels don’t performs as promised, degrade over a short couple of tears, and leak nasty chemicals on everything below. The wind turbines don’t last as long as promised, require more maintenance than advertised, and impactthe environment in multiple ways. But the overriding issue is tte cost. And the only cost is the cost to consumers on their electric bills. Thise bills are higher than the inflation increase for traditional electricity generation. We can just burger the so called LCOE (really Liars Cist if Energy) and just look at the bills customers are presented every month. So push back hard on politicians complicit with this wind and solar charade. Vote wisely, throw the bums out, they’ve likely accumulated enough lobbyists benefits to live in comfort.
If the legacy media weren’t hopelessly biased, consumers would be aware by now of the true costs of solar and wind. But instead they’re getting hit constantly with “solar and wind will make energy cheaper, better, and lower in cholesterol!” Eventually they’ll catch on….
One more thing: In New York, a REC is created by a tracking system (the New York Generation Attribute Tracking System, or NYGATS), it is not a tangible quantity or quality of renewable energy generation. A REC is by definition not energy or electricity, for example. Instead, by a legal fiction, it is the “environmental attributes” of one MWh of electricity generated by a large-scale wind or solar farm. What are those attributes? The NTW-NYSERDA contract says that “attributes” “include but are not limited to . . . any direct emissions or any avoided emissions”. There is no provision requiring the estimation or measurement of avoided emissions in the contract. Crucially, the use of the word “any” means that there need not be avoided emissions at all. “One RPS-Eligible Attribute shall be created upon the generation by a Bid Facility of one MWh of Actual Eligible Production.” That is, one MWh = one Attribute (still don’t know what that is) that can be traded within the RGGI states. NYSERDA may sell RECs to utilities in New York or another RGGI state. The NTW-NYSERDA contract was made in 2016, so I looked at the current standard Tier-1 (large-scale renewables) RECs contract available from NYSERDA (RESRFP25-1). While the terms are different, the current contract also fails to define “environmental attributes” and says simply: “NYGATS will create exactly one Tier-1 REC per MWh of RES[Renewable Energy Standard]-eligible generation.” That is, even if one MWh is injected into a grid with 90% carbon-free electricity, a REC is created, just as injecting one MWh into a 3% carbon-free grid creates one REC. Clearly, few if any MWhs are avoided in either situation. The two situations reflect the reality of the NY upstate and downstate grids, respectively. When utilities buy RECs, they are providing money to wind or solar farms but not reducing emissions.
Also, a NYSERDA contract allows a solar or wind project to generate one REC for each MWh generated, and utilities in NY ( or any other RGGI state) must by law purchase the RECs from the generator in increasing amounts over time. The contract has no other function. It does not, for example authorize operations. A state permit does that. NYSERDA REC contracts are price supports for renewables that could not compete in the electricity markets otherwise. And it’s one of the main reasons solar (and wind) are not cheaper than other types of energy, as the federal tax credits (grants, since they can be sold) sunset. In NY, only nuclear get such credits, and only because price supports for renewables made nuclear uncompetitive with price supports. This is another way renewables make electricity more expensive.
A correction to my comment: I looked at NYSERDA’s contract with Number Three Wind (Invenergy) and see that the RECs are purchased from the wind company by NYSERDA, not (as I said before) by utilities. Utilities in the RGGI states buy RECs from NYSERDA and, in other RGGI states, from those states’ agencies authorized to contract for and purchase RECs from renewable generators. BTW, NYSERDA contracted to buy 163,565,450 RECs from NTW. Within RGGI, RECs sell for about $20 each. So that’s about $3.27 million transferred from ratepayers through NYSERDA to NTW.
The capacity factor (you got the right numbers from NYISO) is the actual generation over the course of a year divided by the design (or nameplate) capacity, not the amount of time the generator runs. It could run quite a lot at less than design capacity, or a little at close to design capacity, with the same capacity factor. This correction does not change your conclusions.
Kris--You say: "In every case, the amount of electricity estimated by the developer was higher than the actual amount generated." This is in the context of the generation rate estimated by the developer when bidding for a NYSERDA "contract". But I don't think the over-estimation matters because actual generation is metered, and the metered amount is recorded by NYGATS. Even if the developer overestimates its generation, it gets one REC for each MWh actually injected into the grid. Developers certainly don't want to underestimate as that would limit the value of the contract. It makes more sense to overestimate, ensuring that all MWhs are eligible for RECs. The real issue is what they're getting paid for: merely generating a MWh, or generating some added environmental attributes. As my earlier comments show, it's the former, and there is no need to establish any other attributes. A MWh generated by a wind- or solar-powered plant is (when it is generated) indistinguishable from a MWh generated by a fossil-fuel-powered plant. wind- or solar-powered plants are simply being singled out for favorable treatment (price supports) regardless of their real (if obscure) attributes. That's a reality factor.
I was looking at this in the context of NYS’s planned buildout and NYSERDA’s annual solicitations. My concern isn’t whether anyone is getting cheated, but whether NYSERDA is estimating how much generation it needs by 2030 and later dates using realistic numbers. My impression is that (as in the UK and other locations), NYSERDA is underestimating how much generation it needs by various dates.
For instance, they’re projecting the need for x MW by a certain date using a capacity factor of 21% for solar (which is also what their contractors are claiming). While we can hope numbers will improve eventually, they’re not there yet and probably won’t be for quite awhile. We’re coming up short now for a variety of reasons, but NYSERDA seems to be unduly optimistic in its projections. I’m suggesting that they’re making flawed assumptions.
Do these companies who quote these solar & wind projects have to stand behind the savings numbers that they worked out, to get the financial incentives from the sources to build these projects out?
When we submit a quote for our equipment, it has to be submitted with a calculation sheet stating what the energy saving are going to be as well as the reduction in CO2 emissions.
Our clients would submit this information, and knew if approved that testing would be done after installation, confirming the savings. We were always very positive and sure in the numbers we submitted, but also realized that if for some reason our equipment would not or did not pass the test, our clients would not get the incentive money - and they would then look at us to remove our equipment and refund everything that they had paid us.
It never happened, but right now I sure am glad we were not selling solar or wind systems.
Maybe it is different with government? Maybe with them, even with poor or negative results, you are still entitled to the "trophy" because of effort?
I bought a ground-mounted solar array for my last house in 2017, and it definitely didn’t perform as advertised. I got a federal tax credit and low-interest loan from NYSERDA when I bought it and received net metering through a PPA with my local utility. The utility didn’t hold me to the PPA, and no one else cared what the array generated. These were strictly incentives for being virtuous, not tied to the pesky realities of generating electricity. I sold the array with the house (the buyer didn’t really want it; I still owed $20K on it, so I had to pay that out of my sale proceeds). As for community and grid-scale solar, no, they’re not required to meet the generation quantities they specify. The state treats any solar generation as a precious commodity. Developers receive incentives on whatever electricity their projects manage to generate; they’re less than they might be when the projects generate less than projected, but they’re still quite generous.
At some point, which drives the question when, the consumers wil recognize the charlatans promoting wild and solar are lying. The solar panels don’t performs as promised, degrade over a short couple of tears, and leak nasty chemicals on everything below. The wind turbines don’t last as long as promised, require more maintenance than advertised, and impactthe environment in multiple ways. But the overriding issue is tte cost. And the only cost is the cost to consumers on their electric bills. Thise bills are higher than the inflation increase for traditional electricity generation. We can just burger the so called LCOE (really Liars Cist if Energy) and just look at the bills customers are presented every month. So push back hard on politicians complicit with this wind and solar charade. Vote wisely, throw the bums out, they’ve likely accumulated enough lobbyists benefits to live in comfort.
If the legacy media weren’t hopelessly biased, consumers would be aware by now of the true costs of solar and wind. But instead they’re getting hit constantly with “solar and wind will make energy cheaper, better, and lower in cholesterol!” Eventually they’ll catch on….
Eventually hopefully
One more thing: In New York, a REC is created by a tracking system (the New York Generation Attribute Tracking System, or NYGATS), it is not a tangible quantity or quality of renewable energy generation. A REC is by definition not energy or electricity, for example. Instead, by a legal fiction, it is the “environmental attributes” of one MWh of electricity generated by a large-scale wind or solar farm. What are those attributes? The NTW-NYSERDA contract says that “attributes” “include but are not limited to . . . any direct emissions or any avoided emissions”. There is no provision requiring the estimation or measurement of avoided emissions in the contract. Crucially, the use of the word “any” means that there need not be avoided emissions at all. “One RPS-Eligible Attribute shall be created upon the generation by a Bid Facility of one MWh of Actual Eligible Production.” That is, one MWh = one Attribute (still don’t know what that is) that can be traded within the RGGI states. NYSERDA may sell RECs to utilities in New York or another RGGI state. The NTW-NYSERDA contract was made in 2016, so I looked at the current standard Tier-1 (large-scale renewables) RECs contract available from NYSERDA (RESRFP25-1). While the terms are different, the current contract also fails to define “environmental attributes” and says simply: “NYGATS will create exactly one Tier-1 REC per MWh of RES[Renewable Energy Standard]-eligible generation.” That is, even if one MWh is injected into a grid with 90% carbon-free electricity, a REC is created, just as injecting one MWh into a 3% carbon-free grid creates one REC. Clearly, few if any MWhs are avoided in either situation. The two situations reflect the reality of the NY upstate and downstate grids, respectively. When utilities buy RECs, they are providing money to wind or solar farms but not reducing emissions.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s great to know.
Also, a NYSERDA contract allows a solar or wind project to generate one REC for each MWh generated, and utilities in NY ( or any other RGGI state) must by law purchase the RECs from the generator in increasing amounts over time. The contract has no other function. It does not, for example authorize operations. A state permit does that. NYSERDA REC contracts are price supports for renewables that could not compete in the electricity markets otherwise. And it’s one of the main reasons solar (and wind) are not cheaper than other types of energy, as the federal tax credits (grants, since they can be sold) sunset. In NY, only nuclear get such credits, and only because price supports for renewables made nuclear uncompetitive with price supports. This is another way renewables make electricity more expensive.
A correction to my comment: I looked at NYSERDA’s contract with Number Three Wind (Invenergy) and see that the RECs are purchased from the wind company by NYSERDA, not (as I said before) by utilities. Utilities in the RGGI states buy RECs from NYSERDA and, in other RGGI states, from those states’ agencies authorized to contract for and purchase RECs from renewable generators. BTW, NYSERDA contracted to buy 163,565,450 RECs from NTW. Within RGGI, RECs sell for about $20 each. So that’s about $3.27 million transferred from ratepayers through NYSERDA to NTW.
The capacity factor (you got the right numbers from NYISO) is the actual generation over the course of a year divided by the design (or nameplate) capacity, not the amount of time the generator runs. It could run quite a lot at less than design capacity, or a little at close to design capacity, with the same capacity factor. This correction does not change your conclusions.
Good point!
Kris--You say: "In every case, the amount of electricity estimated by the developer was higher than the actual amount generated." This is in the context of the generation rate estimated by the developer when bidding for a NYSERDA "contract". But I don't think the over-estimation matters because actual generation is metered, and the metered amount is recorded by NYGATS. Even if the developer overestimates its generation, it gets one REC for each MWh actually injected into the grid. Developers certainly don't want to underestimate as that would limit the value of the contract. It makes more sense to overestimate, ensuring that all MWhs are eligible for RECs. The real issue is what they're getting paid for: merely generating a MWh, or generating some added environmental attributes. As my earlier comments show, it's the former, and there is no need to establish any other attributes. A MWh generated by a wind- or solar-powered plant is (when it is generated) indistinguishable from a MWh generated by a fossil-fuel-powered plant. wind- or solar-powered plants are simply being singled out for favorable treatment (price supports) regardless of their real (if obscure) attributes. That's a reality factor.
I was looking at this in the context of NYS’s planned buildout and NYSERDA’s annual solicitations. My concern isn’t whether anyone is getting cheated, but whether NYSERDA is estimating how much generation it needs by 2030 and later dates using realistic numbers. My impression is that (as in the UK and other locations), NYSERDA is underestimating how much generation it needs by various dates.
For instance, they’re projecting the need for x MW by a certain date using a capacity factor of 21% for solar (which is also what their contractors are claiming). While we can hope numbers will improve eventually, they’re not there yet and probably won’t be for quite awhile. We’re coming up short now for a variety of reasons, but NYSERDA seems to be unduly optimistic in its projections. I’m suggesting that they’re making flawed assumptions.