Community Solar 101
According to ERCOT, the entity that oversees 90 percent of the State's grid, as of January 2019 there was nearly 1,500 megawatts of installed utility-scale…
March 14, 2019 at 09:00 AM
6 minute read
According to ERCOT, the entity that oversees 90 percent of the State's grid, as of January 2019 there was nearly 1,500 megawatts of installed utility-scale solar capacity in the ERCOT region, with that number expected to almost triple to 5,800 megawatts by the end of 2020 (one megawatt is enough to power about 200 homes in Texas during times of high-peak demand). As the demand and desire for solar energy continues to increase, utilities and solar companies in the ERCOT region are finding creative ways to deploy solar generating facilities and expand customer participation. One creative method used by utilities and solar companies is community solar.
A common structure for a community solar program involves the following: the construction of a solar farm by a solar company; the solar company and the participating utility enter into a long term power purchase agreement for the participating utility's purchase of the electric output from the community solar farm; and the solar company sells ownership of the individual solar panels that comprise the solar farm to customers of the participating utility. Customers who purchase panels receive bill credits from the participating utility based on the electric output of the facility and the percentage ownership of the facility by the customer. For example, if a particular community solar farm has 100 solar panels and customer “x” purchases 10 panels, then customer “x” is entitled to receive a credit on his or her monthly electric bill in the amount of 10 percent (10/100) of the total price the participating utility is required to pay for the monthly electric output of the solar farm.
One of the appealing benefits of community solar programs is that they provide an opportunity for direct participation by customers who may not have the means to participate in traditional rooftop solar. Although the customers who participate in community solar programs own the individual panels comprising the community solar farm, the panels remain at the solar farm. Thus, customers can participate in community solar programs without having to: own a home; own a structurally sound roof capable of supporting solar panels; or spend thousands of dollars to install solar panels on their roof. Typically, the cost per panel of a community solar program is a few hundred dollars.
Community solar programs require participation from utilities, solar companies and customers, and implicate several complex issues for consideration by each participant. From a customer's standpoint, one of the threshold considerations is the cost of participating in the community solar program in relation to the projected benefits. The cost/benefit analysis requires customers to consider: the price per panel; the size and projected electric output of the community solar farm; the amount the participating utility has agreed to pay for the electricity generated by the solar farm; the amount of time the customer plans on living in the participating utility's service territory or purchasing electricity from the participating utility (since the obligation to issue the bill credit rests with the participating utility); the tax benefits and potential tax liability from owning the panel; and the intangible benefit of participating in a 'green' initiative.
From a utility's standpoint, in addition to the price for the electric output of the community solar farm, there are several logistical issues that must be considered and properly documented in the power purchase agreement with the solar company. Community solar programs require extensive cooperation between the solar company and the participating utility because utilities need a lot of information in order to apply the bill credits to the proper customer account and in the proper amount on a monthly basis. The participating utility and the solar company must also agree on how to handle nuanced bill credit issues such as credits corresponding to customers who stop receiving electric service from the participating utility, credits attributed to panels that haven't been purchased by customers (if all panels aren't sold prior to the solar facility being operational), and monthly credits that exceed a customer's monthly bill amount. Additionally, because the exchange of customer information between utilities and solar companies necessary to properly apply bill credits is typically accomplished through electronic means, power purchase agreements should contain appropriate cyber security requirements to protect the participating utility's systems and confidentiality requirements to protect customer information.
Lastly, community solar programs also present complex issues for solar companies. Solar companies must carefully consider the structure of the community solar program and the potential applicability of State or Federal securities laws to such structure. Additionally, as outlined above, solar companies build the solar farm with the goal of selling all of the panels to the participating utility's customers. Once the solar company sells all of the panels (which some solar companies are able to do prior to finishing construction of the solar farm or a few months thereafter), the majority of the solar company's financial benefit from the program has been realized despite the company typically having lengthy on-going obligations to the participating utility and the customers to maintain the solar facility and to provide bill credit related customer and facility information to the participating utility on a monthly basis. Typically the power purchase agreement between the solar company and the utility will contain appropriate provisions for the manner in which the solar company's maintenance obligations will be funded. Solar companies must also consider the interest of the participating utility's customers in community solar programs since the success of the program depends in large part on the solar company's ability to sell all of the panels.
Not all community solar programs are created equal. This article is intended to provide a high-level overview of a common community solar program structure used in the ERCOT region. There are many creative variations of the community solar program structure discussed in this article.
Rodrigo Figueroa is the director of Dykema's alternative and renewable energy practice group in the firm's San Antonio office. He has negotiated and drafted power purchase agreements and ancillary contracts in connection with several community solar programs for the firm's utility and electric cooperative clients.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250