What are some ways to increase solar use in public buildings? Megan Lyon Fuentes Fall 2015

Introduction  Electricity Generation = 20% GHG Emissions in CA  Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  Environmental Impacts  Climate Change, Urban Smog, Acid Rain  Stakeholders  Environmentalists/Solar Companies  Fossil Fuel Interests/Power Companies

Background- History  Alexandre Edmond Becquerel  Discovered a small electric current when certain materials were exposed to light  William Grylls Adams & Richard Evans Day  Selenium produced electricity when exposed to light  Daryl M. Chapin, Calvin S. Fuller, & Gerald L. Pearson (Bell Labs)  Developed silicon based solar cells that create electricity directly from sunlight  Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)  Allowed solar electricity systems to interconnect with local utility distribution systems

Background- Current Situation  California Clean Energy Jobs Act (Prop. 39)  Allocates revenue for eligible projects to improve energy efficiency and expand clean energy generation in schools.  California Solar Initiative  Provides incentives for solar systems installed on new and existing buildings.  Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)  Requires 33 percent of energy production in California to be from renewables by 2020.

Background  General Approaches  Provide Incentives  Increase Funding Options  Create Solar Policy = Focus  Mutually Exclusive Policy Options  No Change  Require Schools to Use Solar Energy  Require All Public Buildings to Use Solar Energy

Stakeholder Perspectives Environmentalists & Solar Companies  Central Values:  Reduce pollution  Save money in local communities  Facts:  Solar energy cuts GHG emissions  Large monetary savings for cities and schools  Empirical Assumptions:  Money saved can be reallocated to other programs Fossil Fuel Interests & Utility Companies  Central Values:  Low costs for electric customer  Prevent loss of business  Facts:  NEM in CA shift costs to non-solar customers  Reduction in shareholder earnings  Empirical Assumptions:  Shift to solar creates negative economic impacts

Evaluation of Policy Options Policy Option Environmental Sustainability Economic Sustainability Social Equity No Change Emissions from energy production remain the same (-) Local city governments do not save money on power (-) Electric rates remain stable for non-solar customers (+) Require Schools to Use Solar Energy Reduction in emissions from energy production (+) Schools save money on electric costs (+) Money saved on electric costs can be reallocated to other programs (++) Rate increase for non- solar customers (-) Require All Public Buildings to Use Solar Energy Great reduction in emissions from energy production (++) Local city governments & other public buildings save money on electric costs (++) Substantial rate increase for non-solar customers (--)

Recommendation  My Recommendation  Policy requiring schools to use solar energy  Limitations  1 st : limited understanding of economic impact to public schools  2 nd : difficulty finding data on grid maintenance cost  Concessions  No Change: ensure non-solar customer rates don’t increase  All Public Buildings: rapidly reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation  Justification  Consequences & Implications  Unintended consequence = schools no longer pay their share of grid maintenance  Implication = increase rates for non-solar electric customers  Accountability  Charge schools a fee to cover maintenance costs  Conclusion