Chinese, German firms building solar cell plant

Summerland Solar+Storage Project brings renewable energy to a municipal utility with photovoltaic panels and battery storage, generating 1,200 megawatts from 3,200 panels on Cartwright Mountain to boost grid resilience and local clean power.

Key Points

A municipal solar PV and battery system enabling Summerland Power to self-generate electricity on Cartwright Mountain.

✅ 3,200 panels, 20-year batteries, 35-year panel lifespan

✅ Estimated $7M cost, $6M in grants, utility reserve funding

✅ Site near grid lines; 2-year timeline with 18-month lead

A proposed solar energy project, to be constructed on municipally-owned property on Cartwright Mountain, will allow Summerland Power to produce some of its own electricity, similar to how Summerside's wind power supplies a large share locally.

On Monday evening, municipal staff described the Solar+Storage project, aligning with insights from renewable power developers that combining resources yields better projects.

The project will include around 3,200 solar panels and storage batteries, giving Summerland Power the ability to generate 1,200 megawatts of electrical power.

This is the amount of energy used by 100 homes over the course of a year.

The solar panels have an estimated life expectancy of 35 years, while the batteries have a life expectancy of 20 years.

“It’s a really big step for a small utility like ours,” said Tami Rothery, sustainability/alternative energy coordinator for Summerland. “We’re looking forward to moving towards a bright, sunny energy future.”

She said the price of solar panels has been dropping, with lower-cost solar contracts reported in Alberta, and the quality and efficiency of the panels has increased in recent years.

The total cost of the project is around $7 million, with $6 million to come from grant funding and the remainder to come from the municipality’s electrical utility reserve fund, while policy changes such as Nova Scotia's solar charge delay illustrate evolving market conditions.

The site, a former public works yard and storage area, was selected from 108 parcels of land considered by the municipality.

She said the site, vacant since the 1970s, is close to main electrical lines and will not be highly visible once the panels are in place, much like unobtrusive rooftop solar arrays in urban settings.

Access to the site is restricted, resulting in natural security to the solar installation.

Jeremy Storvold, general manager of Summerland’s electrical utility, said the site is 2.5 kilometres from the Prairie Valley electrical substation and close to the existing public works yard.

However, some in the audience on Monday questioned the location of the proposed solar installation, suggesting the site would be better suited for affordable housing in the community.

The timeline for the project calls for roughly two years before the work will be completed, since there is an 18-month lead time in order to receive good quality solar panels, reflecting the surge in Alberta's solar growth that is straining supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.

Key Points

AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.

✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.

✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.

✅ AEMO recommends exemptions; investors seek certainty.

Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.

The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.

Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.

Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.

“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.

AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.

Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.

The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.

“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.

“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.

AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.

“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”

We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.

“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”

Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.

“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.

Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.

“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.

“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.

The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.

“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”

Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.

Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.

“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.

Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.

Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.        

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario COVID-19 Business Tax Relief outlines permanent Employer Health Tax exemptions, lower Business Education Tax rates, optional municipal property tax cuts, and hydro bill subsidies to support small businesses, industrial and commercial recovery.

Key Points

A provincial package of tax breaks and hydro subsidies to help small, industrial, and commercial businesses recover.

✅ Permanent Employer Health Tax exemption to $1M payroll

✅ Lower Business Education Tax rates for 94% of firms

✅ Hydro subsidies cut medium-large rates by 14-16%

The Ontario government's latest plan to help businesses survive and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic includes a suite of new tax breaks for small businesses and $1.3 billion to subsidize electricity bills for industrial and commercial operations.

The new measures were announced Thursday as part of Ontario's 2020 budget, which sets new provincial records for both spending and deficit projections.

The government of Premier Doug Ford says the budget will address barriers impeding long-term growth, ensuring the province forges a path to a full recovery from the pandemic.

"When the pandemic is over, Ontario will come back with a vengeance, stronger and more prosperous than ever before," Ford said at an afternoon news conference.

Small businesses with payrolls under $1 million will no longer have to pay the Employer Health Tax. The province temporarily raised the exemption from $490,000 to $1 million earlier this year, but the government is now making the change permanent.

The higher exemption means that about 90 per cent of Ontario businesses will no longer have to pay the tax, amounting to about $360 million by 2022, according to the province.

"We have heard from employers across Ontario that this measure helped them keep workers on the job during COVID-19," Finance Minister Rod Phillips told the legislature.

The 2020 budget lowers rates for the Business Education Tax (BET), a property tax earmarked for public education. More than 200,000 Ontario businesses, or 94 per cent, will see a lower rate.

"I believe this budget takes some significant initial steps to help stabilize the economy and help businesses, especially small businesses," said Toronto Mayor John Tory in a statement. Tory's office estimates that reductions to the BET will result in $117 million in lower taxes for commercial properties in Canada's largest city.

Municipal governments will also be permitted to reduce property taxes for small businesses, should they choose to do so. The province says it will "consider matching these reductions," which could amount to $385 million in tax relief by 2023.

Finance Minister Rod Phillips tabled the largest spending plan in Ontario history on Thursday afternoon. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)
Municipalities currently have few options to provide targeted relief to local businesses. Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie, chair of Ontario's Big City Mayors, said the prospect of lowering property taxes will likely be welcomed by local governments across the province.

"I really am looking forward to looking into that because it would give targeted relief to these businesses that have been asking for something from local governments for the past nine months," he said in an interview.

Tax cuts 'won't help a boarded up business,' NDP says
The 2020 budget does not contain any new direct funding for small businesses or their employees. NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again, said those types of funding would help businesses more than potential tax reductions.

"A future hydro or tax cut won't help a boarded up business and it certainly won't help the folks that used to work there," Horwath said.

"Those measures are great if you're a company that's doing really well ... but let's face it, main streets across Ontario are crumbling."

Ontario did reveal on Thursday more details about a previously announced $300-million fund to support businesses in Toronto, Ottawa, Peel Region and York Region, which were placed under modified Stage 2 restrictions this fall. The money can be used to cover property taxes and energy bills for eligible businesses.

In a similar move, B.C. provided a three-month break on electricity bills for residents and businesses during the pandemic.

An undetermined amount of the $300 million will also be made available to businesses that are placed under "control" and "lockdown" rules, which are the two most severe restrictions in the province's updated reopening guidelines announced in October.

No regions are currently under these restrictions.

Elsewhere, B.C. saw commercial electricity consumption plummet during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Government to subsidize hydro bills for industrial businesses
The Ford government, which earlier oversaw a Hydro One leadership overhaul, is also taking aim at what it calls "job-killing electricity prices" in Ontario's industrial and commercial sectors.

The budget includes a $1.3 billion investment over three years to subsidize their hydro bills, a move praised by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters as supportive of industry, which the province says have been inflated due to contracts signed by the previous Liberal government to purchase electricity generated by wind, solar and bioenergy.

"This is the legacy that is making our businesses uncompetitive," Phillips told reporters Thursday afternoon.

Ontario says its $1.3-billion investment to subsidize electricity bills will offset expensive contracts for green energy signed by the previous Liberal government. (Patrick Pleul/dpa via Associated Press)
The investment will lower rates for medium- and large-sized business by between 14 and 16 per cent, and follows an OEB decision on Hydro One rates that affects transmission and distribution costs, according to Ontario's calculations. Phillips said those rates will be among the lowest of any jurisdiction in the Great Lakes region.

The provincial government said the investment is necessary for Ontario to recover from the COVID-19 downturn. The Ford government expects that no further subsidies will be required by around 2040.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Community Power Tariff UK delivers clean electricity from community energy projects, sourcing renewable energy from local wind and solar farms, with carbon offset gas, transparent provenance, fair pricing, and reinvestment in local generators across Britain.

Key Points

UK energy plan delivering 100% community renewable power with carbon-offset gas, sourced from local wind and solar.

✅ 100% community-generated electricity from UK wind and solar

✅ Fair prices with profits reinvested in local projects

✅ Carbon-offset gas and verified, transparent provenance

UK homes will soon be able to plug into community wind and solar farms from anywhere in the country through the first energy tariff to offer clean electricity exclusively from community projects.

The deal from Co-op Energy comes as green energy suppliers race to prove their sustainability credentials amid rising competition for eco-conscious customers and “greenwashing” in the market.

The energy supplier will charge an extra £5 a month over Co-op’s regular tariff to provide electricity from community energy projects and gas which includes a carbon offset in the price.

Co-op, which is operated by Octopus Energy after it bought the business from the Midcounties Co-operative last year, will source the clean electricity for its new tariff directly from 90 local renewable energy generation projects across the UK, including the Westmill wind and solar farms in Oxfordshire. It plans to use all profits to reinvest in maintaining the community projects and building new ones.

Phil Ponsonby, the chief executive of Midcounties Co-operative, said the tariff is the UK’s only one to be powered by 100% community-generated electricity and would ensure a fair price is paid to community generators too, amid a renewable energy auction boost that supports wider deployment.

Customers on the Community Power tariff will be able to “see exactly where it is being generated at small scale sites across the UK, and, with new rights to sell solar power back to energy firms, they know it is benefiting local communities”, he said.

Co-op, which has about 300,000 customers, has set itself apart from a rising number of energy supply deals which are marked as 100% renewable, but are not as green as they seem, even as many renewable projects are on hold due to grid constraints.

Consumer group Which? has found that many suppliers offer renewable energy tariffs but do not generate renewable electricity themselves or have contracts to buy any renewable electricity directly from generators.

Instead, the “pale green” suppliers exploit a loophole in the energy market by snapping up cheap renewable energy certificates, without necessarily buying energy from renewables projects.

The certificates are issued by the regulator to renewable energy developers for each megawatt generated, but these can be sold separately from the electricity for a fraction of the price.

A survey conducted last year found that one in 10 people believe that a renewables tariff means that the supplier generates at least some of its electricity from its own renewable energy projects.

Ponsonby said the wind and solar schemes that generate electricity for the Community Power tariff “plough the profits they make back into their neighbourhoods or into helping other similar projects get off the ground”.

Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, said being able to buy locally-sourced clean, green energy is “a massive jump in the right direction” which will help grow the UK’s green electricity capacity nationwide.

“Investing in more local energy infrastructure and getting Britain’s homes run by the sun when it’s shining and wind energy when it’s blowing can end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels sooner than we hoped,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Courtyard by Marriott Lancaster Solar Array delivers 100% renewable electricity via photovoltaic panels at Greenfield Corporate Center, Pennsylvania, a High Hotels and Marriott sustainability initiative reducing grid demand and selling excess power for efficient operations.

Key Points

A $1.5M PV installation powering the 133-room hotel with 100% renewable electricity in Greenfield Center, Lancaster.

✅ 2,700 PV panels generate 1,239,000 kWh annually

✅ First Marriott in the US with 100% solar electricity

✅ $504,900 CFA grant; excess power sold to the utility

High Hotels Ltd., a hotel developer and operator, recently announced it is installing a $1.5 million solar array that will generate 100% of the electrical power required to operate one of its existing hotels in Greenfield Corporate Center. The completed installation will make the 133-room Courtyard by Marriott-Lancaster the first Marriott-branded hotel in the United States with 100% of its electricity needs generated from solar power. It is also believed to be the first solar array in the country installed for the sole purpose of generating 100% of the electricity needs of a hotel, mirroring how other firms are commissioning their first solar power plant to meet sustainability goals.

“This is an exciting approach to addressing our energy needs that aligns very well with High’s commitment to environmental stewardship,”

“We’ve been advancing many environmentally responsible practices across our hotel portfolio, including converting the interior and exterior lighting at the Lancaster Courtyard to LED, which will lower electricity demand by 15%,” said Russ Urban, president of High Hotels. “Installing solar is another important step in this progression, and we will look to apply lessons from this as we expand our portfolio of premium select-service hotels.”

The Lancaster-based hotel developer, owner and operator is working in partnership with Marriott International Inc. to realize this vision, in step with major brands announcing new clean energy projects across their portfolios.

The installation of more than 2,700 ballasted photovoltaic panels will fill an area more than two football fields in size. After evaluating several on-site and near-site alternatives, High Hotels decided to install the solar array on the roof of a nearby building in Greenfield Corporate Center. Using the existing roof saves more than three acres of open land and has additional aesthetic benefits, aligning with recommendations for solar farms under consideration by local planners. The solar array will produce 1,239,000 kWh of power for the hotel, which consumes 1,177,000 kWh. Any excess power will be sold to the utility, though affordable solar batteries are making on-site storage increasingly feasible.

High Hotels received a grant of $504,900 from the Commonwealth Financing Authority (CFA) through the Solar Energy Program to complete the project. An independent agency of the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), the CFA is responsible for evaluating projects and awarding funds for a variety of economic development programs, including the Solar Energy Program and statewide initiatives like solar-power subscriptions that broaden access. The project will receive a solar renewable energy credit which will be conveyed to the CFA to provide the agency with more funds to offer grants in the future.

“This is a cutting-edge project that is exactly the kind we are looking for to promote the generation and use of solar energy,” said DCED Secretary Dennis Davin. “I am very pleased that the first Marriott in the US to receive 100% of its electric needs through renewable solar energy is located right here in Central Pennsylvania.” Secretary Davin also serves as chairman of the CFA’s board.

Panels for the solar array will be Q Cells manufactured by Hanwha Cells Co., Ltd., headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Ephrata, Pa.-based Meadow Valley Electric Inc. will install the array in the second and third quarters of 2018 with commissioning targeted for September 2018.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News