Written Comments of Connecticut Fund for the Environment Before the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy Re: Implementation of the Shared Clean Energy Facilities Pilot Program Pursuant to Public Act 15-113, Draft Revised Request for Proposals Submitted via email to DEEP.EnergyBureau@ct.gov February 23, 2017 Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE) is a non-profit environmental organization with over 4,700 members statewide. The mission of CFE, and its bi-state program Save the Sound, is to protect and improve the land, air, and water of Connecticut and Long Island Sound. We use legal and scientific expertise and bring people together to achieve results that benefit our environment for current and future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft request for proposals (Revised Draft RFP) for the Shared Clean Energy Facilities (SCEF) Pilot Program. As with CFE’s comments dated June 17, 2016 in response to the initial RFP dated May 20, 2016 (Original Draft RFP), because shared solar is the most prevalent type of SCEF in operation in other states, and this technology seems like the most promising application in Connecticut, our comments will focus on shared solar. CFE acknowledges that DEEP has been required to work within the constraints of Public Act 15-113, which only authorizes six megawatts of projects, and which in CFE’s view is limiting the development of solar in Connecticut.1 Notwithstanding these limitations, there are actions DEEP can take to seek to maximize the pilot’s potential by structuring it in a way that will facilitate the establishment of a workable state-wide program, and by advancing the pilot to completion as quickly as possible. I. Impact of Revised RFP on Timing & Success of Connecticut’s SCEF Program CFE’s longstanding position that the pilot itself is inadequate and the state needs to move forward quickly to establish a full-scale, statewide shared solar program that does not cap the number of projects or total megawatts, makes further delays that are likely to result from DEEP’s decision not to select any of the proposal submitted in response to the July 1, 2016 Final RFP (Original Final RFP) and instead to reissue the Revised Draft RFP, of great concern. 1 Maryland, like Connecticut, is a small state—and yet its pilot program, which was just finalized in regulation last week, is thirty-three times larger than Connecticut’s program, developing 192.1 MW of community solar. See UtilityDive.com, Maryland Finalize Community Solar Rules, Feb. 21, 2017, available at http://www.utilitydive.com/news/marylandregulators-finalize-community-solar-program-rules/436523/. 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org While many states are charging ahead on shared or community solar, 2 Connecticut’s program remains stymied. The national Coalition for Community Solar Access recently highlighted these concerns: We hope that this second attempt at the pilot RFP will be successful. However, DEEP is constrained by the original enabling legislation that calls for a program that does not have the scale necessary to attract significant interest or investment from developers, or provide access to the majority of residents who cannot take advantage of rooftop solar. Community solar’s time has come in Connecticut, but it will require concerted action to enact a effective, statewide program to expand access for all. This is an excellent opportunity for policymakers to learn from the successes of neighboring states developing sustainable and successful community solar programs. The community solar industry stands at the ready to help.3 CFE is also concerned that the Revised SCEF RFP will not receive enough qualified projects, as many of the prior bidders are frustrated that they devoted significant time (at a significant cost) into putting together conforming proposals that met the criteria of the Original SCEF RFP, only to be told their bids were rejected. CFE surveyed some of the bidders in the Original SCEF RFP to see if they were intending to rebid, and received the following illustrative comments: “It was hard enough to apply the first time around….This just makes it worse, it’s very discouraging – we’re not going to respond.” “We felt really well positioned to be awarded some capacity and were dismayed to see the RFP reissued. There was plenty of proceedings on the last RFP, and it’s not like the issues they are raising now arose yesterday.” “We feel like we have BDS -- Battered Developer Syndrome -- as a result of this.” “Shared solar makes a lot of sense and it’s going great in other states. The rollout in CT leaves a lot to be desired.” CFE hopes that DEEP will reach out to bidders to encourage continued participation in the Revised Draft RPF in order to have a successful bidding process and to move the pilot forward. CFE also urges DEEP to move quickly to issue the Final Revised RFP, select winning bidders, and allow the pilots to come online quickly so that DEEP has a chance of meeting the deadlines required by Public Act No. 15-113. CFE is particularly concerned that despite the extremely tight 2 See, e.g., Cory Honeyman, Its Valentine’s Day, I’m finally Ready to Fall in Love with Community Solar (Feb. 14, 2017) GreenTech Media https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Im-ready-to-fall-in-love-with-community-solar (noting there are five states (MA, MN, CO, MD and NY) that have community solar programs either uncapped or north of 100 megawatts, and alone are expected to drive more than 1 gigawatt of projects over the next five years.) 3 Coalition for Community Solar Access, Statement on Connecticut Community Solar Program (Feb. 14, 2017), available at http://www.communitysolaraccess.org/coalition-for-community-solar-access-statement-on-connecticut-community-solarprogram/. 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org timeline set for respondents to submit bids (Final Revised RFP to be released March 2, bids due April 3), the Revised Draft RFP does not commit to a date certain by which DEEP must choose projects. CFE recommends that DEEP impose the same one-month deadline on itself that it imposed on the respondents, and select winning bidders within one month of receiving proposals. Additionally, DEEP should require the winning bidders to submit a report on the status of their SCEF after six months of being in-service, so that DEEP can still issue a report analyzing the success of the shared clean energy pilot program by the statutory deadline of January 1, 2018. DEEP should also commit to setting forth clear steps for a full-scale, state-wide permanent program in this report. II. The New Siting Criteria in Revised Draft RFP Is Overly Restrictive CFE has hoped that the RFP’s main goal would be to structure a pilot that would set the state up for an easy transition to a full-scale, statewide program. While some of the new restrictions in the Revised Draft RFP appear to support important objectives like keeping costs low and increasing the number of subscriptions from residential (as opposed to commercial and industrial (C&I)) customers, CFE is concerned that the siting restrictions imposed to protect prime farmland and other lands —if adopted for a state-wide shared solar program – would unnecessarily restrict shared solar development opportunities in Connecticut. Solar energy can be used in agriculture in a number of ways; saving money, increasing selfreliance, and reducing pollution. For example:  Dairy operations using “long day” lighting to increase production can save money with skylights and other sun-lighting options.4  Vermont is demonstrating the capability of cattle grazing with solar installations. 5  In Europe, planting pollinator gardens between arrays is common; pollinator-friendly solar projects are active in several US states. The European Union distributes best practices for combining solar and agricultural.6  At least one of the bids responding to the Original SCEF RFP cited the reliability benefits of its solar installation for local farmers because of its location “at the end of certain distribution circuitry” so that the project “can provide certain assurance that peak load can be met” for agricultural customers. The proposal added, “While the use of the land would change with the proposed project, the Project Development team and the landowners view this as a fantastic opportunity to assist in the long-term conservation of the land as solar PV 4 Union of Concerned Scientists, Up with the Sun: Solar Energy and Agriculture (2003), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_energy/agfs_solar_2003.pdf. 5 Green Alliance, Solar Arrays and the Future of the New England Farm (June 2015), available at http://www.greenalliance.biz/blog/archives/201506/solar-arrays-and-future-new-england-farm. 6 Rob Davis, Minnesota Leads on Solar for Pollinators and Crops, Jan. 31, 2017, https://freshenergy.org/2017/01/31/19302/. See also BRE (2014) Agricultural Good Practice Guidance for Solar Farms. Ed J Scurlock, available at http://www.appg-agscience.org.uk/linkedfiles/Solar%20Farms%20-%20Good%20Practice%20Guidance.pdf. 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org systems have little to no impact on long-term land use and can be removed with the site restored at the end of the projects useful life.” 7 The Draft Revised RFP should be expanded to accept projects on prime agricultural land if the solar supports the agriculture in part or whole. III. Revised RFP Includes Improvements in Subscriber Eligibility and Fostering Equity Among Consumer Classes, But Could Go Further The new requirement in the Revised Draft RFP to limit C&I Subscribers to 60% of the output of the SCEF will have a positive impact on increasing the number of residential customers participating. Given that the vast majority (about 80%) of Connecticut residents cannot install their own solar panels, the pilot program should encourage outreach to this segment of the population. It would be a missed opportunity for the pilot to ignore the vast majority of people that shared clean energy programs are intended to serve. The Revised Draft RFP should do more to incentivize subscriber organizations to reach residential customers that cannot install rooftop solar panels (and therefore cannot access clean energy). Additionally, the overall number of low- and moderate-income (LMI) residential customers who can access the program will still be very small, as the Revised Draft RFP requires only 20% of the 40% residential customer to be LMI customers. DEEP should increase the LMI requirements from 20% to 50% of residential customers, as CFE suggested in original comments. CFE also supports the Connecticut Green Bank’s recommendation to change the criteria for classification as an LMI customer to be based on area median income rather than state median income, consistent with current Connecticut Department of Housing income guidelines, which are derived from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. IV. The Revised RFP Still Contains Some of the Flaws of the Original RFP Since the Revised Draft RFP contains many of the same provisions as the Original RFP, many of the concerns that CFE raised in its initial comments dated June 17, 2016, are still applicable. These concerns, which are more thoroughly explained in CFE’s June 17 th comments, include: a. Evaluation Process and Criteria CFE remains concerned that the evaluation process could be biased toward ensuring the interests of the electric distribution companies (EDCs), the only parties outside of the staff team to receive complete proposals, including confidential information. Considering the EDCs’ past opposition to shared clean energy legislation, CFE urges DEEP to keep non-public discussions with the EDCs limited to the SCEF team’s needs to obtain specific information from the EDCs. Relatedly, it appears that some portions of the RFP (the Tariff, Enrollment Form, and Terms and Conditions) are not currently publically available, as they were in the previous drafts, limiting the public’s ability to comment on these forms and how they may impact the SCEF pilot as a whole. 8 Since these documents 7 Clean Energy Collective LLC - CEC Eversource Lebanon Community Solar Array Proposal, at p. 45, available at http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/c6c6d525f7cdd1168525797d0047c5bf/a5792baf03330549852580260051e3f1 ?OpenDocument. 8 The Revised Draft RFP states that “Shared Clean Energy Facilities selected by DEEP to participate in the Pilot Program must agree to the Terms and Conditions established by this RFP, which have been incorporated into the Tariff, Enrollment 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org are not available for review and public comment, it is incumbent on DEEP to ensure that the additional documents are consistent with the terms and spirit of the final RFP. b. Participation in State Incentive Programs Should Be Permitted CFE also continues to oppose the limitation on eligible projects excluding facilities that “receive[] any Connecticut ratepayer-funded incentives or subsidies, including but not limited to, net metering, virtual net metering, LREC/ZREC contracts, and direct incentives from the Connecticut Green Bank or the Conservation and Loan Management Program.” Revised Draft RFP, Section 3.2. As Joel Gordes noted in his comments during the first public hearing on June 9, 2016 and the recent public hearing on February 14, 2017, prohibiting projects that receive state-level incentives from participating in the pilot is concerning. First, it is inconsistent with the model rules on shared renewable energy programs from the highly regarded Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC). 9 As the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering noted in its 2015 report on shared clean energy facilities, the IREC model rules include several guiding principles, including the following: “Program benefits should mirror, to the extent possible, benefits received by participants in the state’s other, more established, renewable energy programs.”10 CFE recommends following this recommendation and allowing projects that receive state-level incentives to participate in the pilot. * * * In conclusion, CFE is encouraged by DEEPs comments at the SCEF public technical meeting that it is attempting to create a model that can be used to inform a long-term sustainable program. Connecticut could significantly increase the amount of solar generated in-state with a full-scale shared solar program.11 A statewide shared solar program in Connecticut is critical to the state’s ability to meet the 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets under Global Warming Solutions Act. Moreover, expanding solar is good for Connecticut’s economy. 12 The value of solar and other renewables far exceeds its current compensation at net metering rates, even when societal benefits are not included. 13 Form, and Terms and Conditions. The EDCs will submit the Tariff, Enrollment Form, and Terms and Conditions to PURA for approval at the same time that DEEP issues the final RFP for bid.” Revised Draft RFP, at 9. 9 Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Model Rules for Shared Renewable Energy Programs (2013), http://www.irecusa.org/publications/model-rules-for-shared-renewable-energy-programs/. 10 CT Academy of Science & Engineering, Shared Clean Energy Facilities (2015), p. 13, http://www.ctcase.org/reports/SCEF/SCEF.pdf. 11 David Feldman, Anna M. Brockway, Elaine Ulrich, and Robert Margolis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy, Shared Solar: Current Landscape, Market Potential, and the Impact of the Federal Securities Regulation (April 2015 ), available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63892.pdf 12 According to the Solar Foundation’s 2015 jobs census, there were 1,951 solar jobs in Connecticut in 2015. The Solar Foundation, 2015 National and State Solar Jobs Census, www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/; http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/solar-jobs-compendium-CT/. Solar proliferation in Connecticut will mean more employment opportunities. 13 See, e.g., Lena Hansen & Virginia Lacy, Rocky Mtn. Inst., A Review of Solar PV Benefit & Cost Studies (2d. ed. Sept. 2013), http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center%2FLibrary%2F2013-13_eLabDERCostValue; Acadia Center, Value of Distributed Generation – Solar PV in Connecticut (Mar. 2015), http://acadiacenter.org/document/value-of-distributedgeneration-solar-pv-in-connecticut/; Brookings Institute, Rooftop Solar: Net Metering is a Net Benefit, May 2016, available at https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/. 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org It is time to move Connecticut forward on its clean energy goals through an ambitious shared solar program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft revised RFP for the shared clean energy facilities pilot program. Sincerely, Claire Coleman Climate & Energy Attorney ccoleman@ctenvironment.org David Desiderato Shared Solar Consultant ddesiderato@ctenvironment.org Connecticut Fund for the Environment 900 Chapel Street, Suite 2202 New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 787-0646 900 Chapel Street Upper Mezzanine New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-787-0646 www.ctenvironment.org 545 Tompkins Avenue 3rd Floor Mamaroneck, New York 10543 914-381-3140 www.savethesound.org