1 / 17

Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting

Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting. Ben Airth, CSI Program Manager California Center for Sustainable Energy. Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting. Since program inception, the CSI Program has looked at cost data via $/Watt. CSI Residential Third Party Owned Systems.

jase
Télécharger la présentation

Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting Ben Airth, CSI Program Manager California Center for Sustainable Energy

  2. Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting • Since program inception, the CSI Program has looked at cost data via $/Watt

  3. CSI Residential Third Party Owned Systems • The increase in third party owned residential systems has grown substantially since 2007: • 2007 = 7% • 2008 = 15% • 2009 = 15% • 2010 = 32% • 2011 = 54% • 2012 = 69% • Lifetime of Program= 32%

  4. CSI Non-Residential Third Party Owned Systems • The increase in third party owned non-residential systems remain fairly steady but significant since 2006: • 2006 = 50% • 2007 = 40% • 2008 = 24% • 2009 = 20% • 2010 = 34% • 2011 = 22% • 2012 = 43% • Lifetime of Program= 33%

  5. Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting • www.CaliforniaSolarStatistics.ca.gov has allowed program participants to compare cost data among many different years, customer sectors, Program Administrators, and system ownership types Residential Cost Distribution: Host Customer vs. Third-Party Owned

  6. Revising CSI Cost Data Reporting • www.CaliforniaSolarStatistics.ca.gov has allowed program participants to compare cost data among many different years, customer sectors, Program Administrators, and system ownership types Non-Residential Cost Distribution: Host Customer vs. Third-Party Owner

  7. Revising CSI Cost Data: What is the Issue? • With the infusion of third party owned systems, an issue in project cost data collection and reporting now exists • How can policy makers and consumers make sense of cost data when they represent different information? • Creating a sustainable solar market: how does California know this is being achieved? Reduction in $/W costs? • How can consumers effectively compare a cash system vs. a third party owned system? How can CSI data help in this equation?

  8. Evaluating Different Approaches James Loewen Energy Division loe@cpuc.ca.gov

  9. Background Third Party Owners (TPOs) have a hard time providing Project Cost for CSI reporting. High Cost Justification forms are required when $/W are above a certain threshold. We want to ensure fair and equal treatment among the different ownership arrangements.

  10. Policy goals Make “apples-to-apples” comparison among the different ownership arrangements. Requires either $/W or $/kWh Allow for better comparison between rooftop PV and other energy sources Requires $/kWh

  11. Additional data needed to report $/W and $/kWh for TPOs Energy production: fairly simple New inputs: capacity factor, annual degradation, term Present value of host customer’s payment stream (for TPOs): more complicated New inputs: discount rate, salvage value, term, etc.

  12. How do / how could applicants report “Project Cost”? Cash price to host customer TPOs – Sale price from Contractor to Third Party Owner TPOs – Cost to contractor TPOs – Fair Market Value (used for tax reporting) Proposal – sum of discounted payment stream from host customer

  13. 1) Project Cost reporting: Cash Price to host customer This would be the definitive method, except it does not include: Inverter replacement Roof replacement

  14. 2) Project Cost reporting: Sale price from contractor to TPO Does not include: Inverter replacement Roof replacement TPO’s overhead and profit (but does include contractor’s overhead and profit)

  15. 3) Project Cost reporting: Cost to contractor Does not include: Inverter replacement Roof replacement TPO’s overhead and profit

  16. 4) Project Cost reporting: Fair market value This method is entirely different from the Cash Price Empirically/statistically, are its values close to the Cash Price (Approach #1)? Do all TPOs calculate this value for each installation? If this is close to the Cash Price, and involves no extra work for applicant, maybe it’s good enough?

  17. 5) Project Cost reporting: Proposal – Sum of Discounted Payment Stream This would include all projected payments – for leases and PPAs – discounted appropriately. Is it too burdensome for TPO applicants? Would reported #s be trustworthy? Would spot checks of these calculations be needed? Is the added cost to the program administration, and to applicants, and to policy makers, worth it?

More Related