Load Defection Among Agricultural Producers

Transcription

1 June 2018 Load Defection Among Agricultural Producers Key Points: n Poultry, dairy and swine producers typically are the biggest annual electricity users in agriculture, averaging $12,000-$30,000/year in electricity costs, and are the most likely to adopt on-farm solar generation. By Taylor Gunn Lead Economist Inside Introduction...1 As Sure as the Sun Will Rise, the Price of Solar Will Fall...2 The Federal ITC and Net Metering Drive Adoption of On-Farm Solar Generation...2 On-farm Solar Moves Beyond California...3 Electricity Demand among Swine, Dairy and Poultry Producers...4 The Alabama Effect...4 Grid Parity and Demand Response...4 Conclusion...5 References...5 n The installation cost for a 40 kilowatt on-farm solar facility is around $2.80 per Watt dc. This is not competitive with retail electricity rates, but the ability to take advantage of federal tax credits, and state incentives, drives the adoption of distributed solar among ag producers. n Adoption of distributed solar among ag producers remains low, largely driven by incentives and tax appetite, but will accelerate when the levelized cost of energy for on-farm solar converges with retail electricity rates, which will likely occur by 2025 in most states. n The common practice of offering very competitive retail electricity rates to agricultural producers through demand response programs will delay grid parity, but only until 2030 in the Midwest, and even sooner in areas with stronger solar resources. Introduction The cost of distributed solar is falling, and favorable state policies that support the growth of renewable energy are proliferating. This is pushing increased adoption of on-farm solar generation beyond traditional markets such as California. Projected cost declines suggest the cost of on-farm solar could be competitive with average commercial retail rates by 2025 in most states. This indicates when load defection or self generation of electricity among end users could accelerate. High electricity-consuming ag sectors such as poultry, swine, and dairy operations stand to benefit from the increasing competiveness of on-farm solar. Electric distribution cooperatives which have little control over state legislation that promotes the growth of distributed solar and have no control over the falling price of solar risk losing sales to on-farm solar generation. Offering low energy rates to agricultural producers through demand response helps delay grid parity, but even these rates could experience competition from on-farm solar by CoBank ACB,

2 EXHIBIT 1: The Price of a 40 kw Solar Facility, 2018 vs Installation Costs ($2017/Wdc) $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $.50 $ Module Inverter As Sure as the Sun Will Rise, the Price of Solar Will Fall Recently, the price of solar modules in the U.S. increased through the first half of 2018 as a result of import tariffs on solar equipment. However, standard market behavior among solar manufacturers will reduce module production costs and the price of modules. Now that the market has coalesced with more certainty around tariffs, tariffincluded pricing can be predicted with more confidence. 1 The solar tariff imposes a 30 percent tax on imported modules in year one, dropping 5 percent annually until reaching 15 percent in Average module prices in the U.S. are currently around $0.45/Wattdc, and are expected to decline by about 2 percent annually in the years ahead. The installed price for a small commercial solar system less than 100 kw was around $5/Watt dc in 2012, and is currently around $2.80/Watt dc. This translates to an energy cost of roughly $0.09-$0.12 per kilowatt-hour (kwh), depending on location and other assumptions. Falling balance of system (BOS) and soft costs (i.e. labor, overhead, and marketing) will likely have the BOS Labor Source: CoBank, Department of Energy Installer Overhead Permitting EPC Overhead Interconnection largest impact on reducing the price of commercial PV solar arrays in the future. Moving forward the total install price for small commercial systems (less than 100 kw) could reach $1.31/W dc by (See Exhibit 1.) The Federal ITC and Net Metering Drive Adoption of On-Farm Solar Generation The most important incentive for solar is the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The tax benefits provided by the ITC to a consumer with a large tax liability can be enough to incentivize the development of an on-farm solar facility, regardless of project economics. Project owners are provided a tax credit equal to 30 percent of the installation cost for a solar system. Congress extended the 30 percent credit through 2019, when it will drop to 26 percent in 2020, 22 percent in 2021, and remain at 10 percent from 2022 onwards. Sales Tax Reduction of the ITC will increase the volatility of project pipelines. Demand is likely to surge prior to stepping down to 10 percent, then slow in In addition to the ITC, state-level net metering policies are critical to growth of distributed solar. States that adopt net metering policies provide customers a mechanism to be compensated by their local utility for any excess generation their system produces beyond what they use. See the Appendix for a map that includes more information on state-level net metering policies. Each state s net metering policy differs by the rate at which utilities compensate their customers. Some pay full retail rate, while other utilities pay wholesale rates, or a rate that reflects a utility s avoided cost. In addition, utilities have different limits on the size of a system each customer can install. 2

3 For example, Minnesota s Net metering law requires electric cooperatives and municipals to compensate customers at the retail rate for any system less than 40 kw in size (this limit is 1 MW for investor owned utilities), systems larger than 40 kw are compensated at the utility s much lower avoided cost. As a result, customers build systems that are exactly 40 kw in size to remain eligible for the full retail rate. This causes many systems to be oversized and can result in significant overgeneration on a coop s system. On-farm Solar Moves Beyond California California leads the nation in solar generation, for both utility-scale and behind-the-meter systems such as rooftop solar arrays. This growth has been fueled by federal incentives, relatively high retail electricity rates, and aggressive state policies that promote the development of renewable energy. California has one of the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in the nation, requiring utilities to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by In addition, the state s net metering policy reimburses customers for any excess generation at the retail rate. The state just passed legislation that requires new-build homes and small apartments to install rooftop solar, beginning in The agriculture sector in California has been quick to adopt distributed generation predominately solar in an effort to take advantage of strong incentives and to reduce operating costs. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, California represented 14 percent of the nation s on-farm solar facilities in Fruit and tree nut processors in the state accounted for almost half of these systems. This is largely driven by the significant amount of electricity used in processing tree nuts. Interest in solar among agriculture producers outside California is increasing, driven by falling solar prices, federal incentives, and the proliferation of state-level solar policies. The level of federal grant dollars provided for solar projects through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) is a decent proxy to understand the growth of on-site generation among farmers since EXHIBIT 2: REAP Grant Solar Projects from by State Number of projects North Carolina Tennessee Oregon Missouri Pennsylvania Kentucky New York Washington Texas Maryland California Indiana Iowa Ohio New Hampshire Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Georgia Massachusetts Virginia Delaware New Mexico Montana Maine Utah South Carolina Arizona Nebraska Hawaii Colorado West Virginia New Jersey Mississippi Rhode Island Florida Connecticut Alabama Illinois Idaho Louisiana Vermont Kansas Alaska Nevada Wyoming South Dakota Arkansas Oklahoma Source:USDA Rural Development REAP funding provides guaranteed loan financing and grants to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for renewable energy systems or to make energy efficiency improvements. REAP-funded solar projects have increased by 5,600 since Only 144 of these projects are located in California, indicating that interest in on-farm solar generation is growing quickly outside California and into other markets. (See Exhibit 2.) 3

4 EXHIBIT 3: Grid Parity Among Alabama Poultry Producers (2017 $/kwh) $0.14 $0.12 $0.10 $0.08 $0.06 $0.04 $0.02 $ Source: System Advisor Model, CoBank LCOE of Solar for Alabama Poultry Average Commercial Retail Rate Demand Response Rate does provide some incentives for mid-sized distributed solar projects, but the program is not statewide. The federal ITC is the only significant incentive available to all consumers in Alabama that are interested in on-site solar generation. Alabama is also one of the nation s largest chicken broiler-producing states, usually in competition with Georgia for the top spot. In 2017, Alabama produced 6.1 million pounds of chicken broiler meat and consumed roughly 270 million kwh in the process. 5 Electricity Demand among Swine, Dairy and Poultry Producers Both crop and livestock farmers pay hefty electricity bills every year. At the top of this list are dairy, poultry, and swine farmers. Dairy and livestock farmers incur average annual electricity costs of $12,000-$30,000 per farm. 3 Relative to other farm businesses, dairy and livestock producers have some of the most consistent year-round demand for electricity to support vacuum pumping and cooling milk, feeding equipment, ventilation, water heating, animal-house heating and cooling, and lighting. Nationwide, dairy farms, poultry farms, and swine farms consume roughly 11.9 billion kwh annually. 4 This represents a quarter of all the electricity purchased by the agriculture sector in 2017, and is enough energy to support roughly 1.1 million single family homes for an entire year. This level of electricity consumption makes these producers prime candidates for the adoption of on-farm solar generation. The Alabama Effect Alabama provides a great example to evaluate when the cost of distributed solar among agricultural producers could become competitive with retail electricity rates, without any state incentives. Alabama does not have an RPS policy, and net metering is non-existent. It could be viewed, in terms of renewable energy policy, as the total opposite of California. The Tennessee Valley Authority Currently, a 40 kw on-farm solar facility in Alabama yields a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of $0.960/kWh, higher than the average commercial retail rate of $0.90/ kwh in the state. 6 However, given the falling price of solar and benefits of the federal ITC, on-farm solar facilities in Alabama could reach grid parity in 2024 when compared to the average commercial retail rates. (See Exhibit 3.) This is compelling for poultry producers and other end users in Alabama, and the broader Southeast region. Even without state-level support for distributed solar, grid parity will likely spur growing interest in the years ahead. Grid Parity and Demand Response MiEnergy Electric Coop serves members across Northern Iowa and Southeast Minnesota, in the heart of a heavy swine and dairy-producing region. Despite strong state and federal incentives, many dairy and swine producers in MiEnergy s service territory are hard pressed to develop an on-site solar-generating facility that provides a lower cost of energy than MiEnergy s retail rate that is offered through its demandresponse program. MiEnergy will turn on a dairy or swine facility s backup diesel generation during peak demand to reduce the overall system peak. Reducing MiEnergy s peak demand saves the coop money on its power bill. In return for giving up control of its backup diesel generation, swine and dairy producers are offered an attractive retail rate that includes an energy charge of $0.065/kWh and a small demand charge of $5.75/kW. 4

5 EXHIBIT 4: Grid Parity Among Iowa Swine Producers and Arizona Dairy Producers (2017 $/kwh) LCOE of Solar for Iowa Swine 0.04 LCOE of Solar for Arizona Dairy Average Commercial Retail Rate 0.02 Demand Response Rate Source: System Advisor Model, CoBank depends heavily on rate structures. Of course, utilities that don t offer competitive rates to ag consumers are more exposed to competition from on-farm solar. However, even low energy rates offered through programs such as demand response will begin to experience competition from on-farm solar by 2030 in the Midwest. This will occur even sooner in states with strong solar resources, such as Arizona. Electric utilities that don t offer highly competitive energy rates to their agriculture producers are likely to experience competition from on-farm solar sooner. For example, a solar system on a typical swine facility in Iowa could reach grid parity in Using a rate structure similar to the one MiEnergy offers many of its dairy and swine producers, delays grid parity to This timeframe will be compressed in areas with stronger solar resources than Iowa. For example, on-farm solar in Arizona is already below average commercial rates and could beat demand response rates by (See Exhibit 4.) Conclusion The U.S. farm economy is currently at the bottom of a business cycle, which slows the adoption of on-farm solar generation. However, when markets reverse, one thing is for sure: Solar prices will be lower. Future recoveries in the hog, dairy and poultry sectors of the ag economy will likely signal stronger growth for on-farm solar generation. The competition of on-farm solar with retail rates References 1 Sol Systems April 2018 newsletter 2 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cost-Reduction Roadmap for Residential Solar Photovoltaics, , January Hitaj, Claudia, and Shellye Suttles. Trends in U.S. Agriculture s Consumption and Production of Energy: Renewable Power, Shale Energy, and Cellulosic Biomass, EIB-159, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Research Service, August This assumes 800 kwh/cow, 29kWh/hog, and 44 kwh/1,000 pounds of chicken produced. 5 USDA data 6 This evaluation assumes a 40 kw roof-mounted system that supports a chicken farm in Alabama with six houses across 40 acres and annual electricity demand of 175,200 kwh. See Appendix for assumptions used in the model. 7 See Appendix for assumptions used in the model. 5

6 APPENDIX System Advisory Model inputs for a 40 kw on-farm PV solar array System Costs ($/Wdc) Module Inverter BOS Labor Installer Overhead Permitting EPC Overhead Grid Interconnection Sales Tax Rate (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Total Capital Cost $110,594 $105,621 $101,491 $95,733 $92,447 $87,808 $80,873 $76,322 $71,378 $66,042 $61,884 $56,940 $51,604 O&M Cost ($/kw-yr) ITC 30% 30% 26% 22% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Debt percent 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Inflation 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Real discount rate 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% System Life (years) Alabama Poultry Facility Solar resource location Birmingham, AL Year 1 Capacity Factor (%) Year 1 Energy Production (kwh) 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 57,297 LCOE Real (cents/kwh) Iowa Swine Facility Solar resource location Des Moines, IA Year 1 Capacity Factor (%) Year 1 Energy Production (kwh) 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 57,047 LCOE Real (cents/kwh) Arizona Dairy Facility Solar resource location Tucson, AZ Year 1 Capacity Factor (%) Year 1 Energy Production (kwh) 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 71,175 LCOE Real (cents/kwh) Note: National Renewable Energy Laboratory s System Advisory Model (SAM) was utilized to evaluate the LCOE for a 40 kw on-farm commercial facility in Alabama and Iowa using the above model assumptions. 6

7 NET METERING POLICIES DC 38 States + DC, AS, USVI, & PR have mandatory Net Metering rules KEY State-developed mandatory rules for certain utilities (38 states + DC+ 3 territories) No statewide mandatory rules, but some utilities allow net metering (2 states) Statewide distributed generation compensation rules other than net metering (7 states + 1 territory) U.S. Territories : AS PR VI GU CoBank s Knowledge Exchange Division welcomes readers comments and suggestions. Please send them to KEDRESEARCH@cobank.com. Disclaimer: The information provided in this report is not intended to be investment, tax, or legal advice and should not be relied upon by recipients for such purposes. The information contained in this report has been compiled from what CoBank regards as reliable sources. However, CoBank does not make any representation or warranty regarding the content, and disclaims any responsibility for the information, materials, third-party opinions, and data included in this report. In no event will CoBank be liable for any decision made or actions taken by any person or persons relying on the information contained in this report. 7