TVA Continues to Mismanage Solar Power

Charlie Coggeshall, SACE Renewable Energy Manager, also contributed to this post.

Last month the Tennessee Valley Authority proudly announced what they considered to be good news: That their 2013 Green Power Provider (GPP) program had already met its 2013 solar application target as of April 24th. Even though there is still a strong demand for new solar systems, in less than four months the program is now completely “full” and no longer accepting solar applications for the rest of the  year. Imagine how pleased they must be with the popularity of their program; then again, it’s not exactly difficult for them to meet such a small application target.

Good news? Really? Try telling that to the Tennessee Valley solar companies, who are technically “done” signing contracts for the year. The implications of this announcement are incredibly serious for the local solar industry, which will now have to withstand seven months of no new sales. How many businesses do you know that can go seven months without selling any of their product?

Programmatic Whiplash
TVA solar programs evolved from the Green Generation Partners Pilot Program that was originally launched in 2003. The programs had a slow start, but really began to grow in 2009. There are currently nearly 140 solar companies  at work throughout the solar value chain in the Valley. In the summer of 2010, however, as growth in the program accelerated, TVA began a series of changes that caused serious disruptions to the program. There were abrupt stops in accepting applications, and then a 80% reduction in allowable systems size that was followed shortly by another 75% size reduction. These reductions shrunk the allowable system size from 1000 kilowatts to 50 kilowatts.

Since then, name and rule changes with additional constraints have kept the solar industry off balance. Deployments of larger (above 50 KW) solar systems have dramatically dropped off.  The only thing consistent about TVA’s solar program modifications since 2010? TVA’s efforts to constrain the solar market.

In October of 2012, TVA changed the name of the program to Green Power Providers and, for the first time, established a total program cap of 2.5 megawatts (MW) for new applications submitted in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2012.  Of course, the program was filled with applications almost immediately. This past January, the premium incentive was reduced by 25% to $.09, and the program was set to allow a total of only 7.5 MW of new project applications for the remainder of calendar year 2013. This allotment has already been filled only four months into the program and is now closed again to future applications.

TVA has tried to link their solar programs to their small voluntary green power pricing program, Green Power Switch, which is largely run for public relations purposes. Green Power Switch has never generated a strong following because a majority of people believe the benefits of clean renewable energy should be supported by all customers and not just a few who are willing to pay extra on their bills. Even after more than ten years, most TVA customers don’t even know about or fully understand the voluntary program.

In a web based FAQ, the company states that: “TVA wants to promote sustainable growth in small-scale renewable generation while continuing to support local industry and provide a smooth path to grid parity.”

They’re promoting sustainable growth? Not currently. Rather, TVA’s program is creating an unsustainable environment which threatens the local businesses and livelihoods of the very industry it claims to support.

What is needed is sustained orderly development of this emerging technology. TVA’s management of the solar program has taken this developing industry through programmatic whiplash.

People Want More Solar
Why should TVA support solar development in our region? Because people in the Tennessee Valley want it!

- Solar is the fastest growing energy source in the U.S. and receives a higher rank than any other generation source when it comes to public “favorability.”

- It is truly clean energy, generating much needed electrons in the heat of the day – close to TVA’s peak usage times when power production is most expensive and dirtiest.

- Solar can also provide value through transmission and distribution energy and capacity benefits, as well as fuel price mitigation.

These benefits have been clearly  documented. The most amazing thing about solar is that people are willing to invest their own money to build solar generation for TVA’s power grid, resulting in no major capital cost to TVA unlike other generation which pushes TVA against its debt ceiling. On top of this, solar power provides local economic development with local jobs, instead of sending regional money to coal mines out west or gas fields in Texas.

Misleading the Public
Though solar costs have been declining at record rates, it’s true that solar does need some subsidy support in the near term to develop economies of scale production and experience, both of which will drive costs lower in the long run. Unfortunately, TVA spokesmen have taken to using inflammatory language to mislead the public and decision makers by implying that the solar industry is seeking  ”unlimited subsidies,” as stated by TVA’s spokesman, Mike Bradley.

The truth is that when TVA dropped its premium incentive rate from $.12/kWh in 2012 to $.09/kWh in 2013, the industry was not up in arms over the reduction in the subsidy; they understood that as the installed price comes down, so too must the incentive value. Instead TVA should be voicing strong support for solar power consistent with the Administration’s agenda, not misrepresenting the industry’s positions.

Show me the numbers
When Senior Executive Kim Greene went before the TVA Board of Directors asking for their support of the “new and improved” Green Power Provider program at TVA, it was clearly indicated that TVA staff would work with solar stakeholders to design future changes in the program. But that’s not what happened. What has happened is that TVA staff has never publicly shown the calculations behind how they came up with the 2.5 MW or 7.5 MW caps. These appear to be arbitrarily chosen values. Clearly they misread the market, given that the program has been over subscribed twice already and is now shut down only 4 months into the new year. TVA never shared the specific market research that led to the 25% reduction in incentive price going from $.12 to $.09, and TVA currently plans additional nonspecified reductions in future.

One requirement of the program that all parties agree is important is a clear time limit to get projects built.  Applicants that were accepted into GPP before it reached capacity would need to complete their projects within 6 months (180 days) of approval. However, it’s well known in the solar industry that some companies act as “speculators” and merely submit applications without full assurance that their projects will actually be completed. TVA currently has no safeguard against these types of applicants.

Interestingly, TVA created a web based “Dashboard” to show developers how the program was proceeding toward its new cap. Dashboard initially showed both approved applications and completed or “operating”projects. On April 24, the Dashboard showed less than 20% of the 2012 cap projects being completed as their 180 day deadline approached. However, this transparency was abruptly removed following inquiries by the solar industry as to exactly how much had been completed and whether or not allocated capacity that had not been built would be re-opened for applications. These numbers have not been shared publicly, and the “Dashboard” continues to not display “operating”projects, so no one knows how many projects were completed on time.


There is reason to believe this specific issue may be resolved in the 2013 round of GPP, based on a statement by TVA’s Director of Renewable Programs, Patty West: “If a project doesn’t move forward or can’t be installed in a timely manner, we can allow someone else the opportunity to build a system.” However, this language – “can allow” – is not definitive and creates uncertainty for at least another six months, a timing gamble that many local solar companies cannot afford.

There appears to be no publicly available analytical support for TVA’s selection of capacity targets and associated incentive rates, nor any acknowledgment of the potential value distributed solar energy provides to the grid.

So what now?
SACE’s suspicion is that the 2013 GPP capacity cap of 7.5MW is based not on an evaluation of what’s needed to sustain the local industry or to meet the public demand for solar, but rather on an arbitrary number chosen to meet a non-transparent budget target which reflects a low priority for solar power at TVA.

Assuming all the capacity dedicated under GPP is built and operating by the end of September 2013, the annual cost for TVA for the following Fiscal Year (i.e., Oct 1, 2013 – Sept. 31, 2014), would be about $2 million. Note that this doesn’t account for administrative costs, but it also doesn’t account for potential offsetting revenue through the sale of renewable energy credits (RECs), or through the funds collected under the Green Power Switch program, or the potential grid value benefits. $2 million is about .02% of TVA’s projected 2012 revenue of $12 billion, and about .08% of the $2.6 billion TVA planned to invest in capital projects for their power system.

If TVA leadership is sincere about using clean solar energy and being responsive to strong public support and clear market demand, this program must be taken seriously, managed well and carefully developed. If program caps are needed, they should be chosen in a clear and transparent manner. As solar costs continue to decline, reductions in the incentives should be carefully chosen in a clear and transparent process, with supporting market research and close collaboration with solar stakeholders. TVA should welcome and support people who want to build solar systems for the regional grid and the small businesses who make it possible. Every effort should be geared toward sustained orderly development, not clumsily repeated disruptions.

*The projected generation is based on the default values in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s PVWatts calculator for Nashville, TN, an area that represents a reasonable average solar resource for the state. Lastly, it includes the premium rates paid for in the two programs ($.12/kWh for 2012 allocation and $.09 for 2013 allocation) and the difference between an average retail rate ($.10/kWh) and a solar avoided cost of $.041/kWh. This solar avoided cost was calculated based on the rates solar generation would be correlated with when considering the season and time-of-use rates provided by TVA in their Renewable Standard Offer pricing guidelines.

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Comments

rssComments RSS

Thank you for the post. I agree, TVA needs to be held accountable for this. They cannot get away with claiming they are committed to solar energy when they cap spending on solar electricity at $2 million per year to “protect ratepayers.” They have a blatant bias again solar when it is nuclear and coal that have created massive debt of over $25 billion. Their business-as-usual, pro nuclear and pro coal attitude does not protect ratepayers, obviously. When rates finally increase to pay for the debt, I hope no one blames solar.


Comment by Grace Robertson on May 10, 2013 2:19 pm


WOW!!! A cap of 7.5Mega watts.

While New Jersey installed 413 megawatts last year. Why that’s 55 times more than TVA’s GENEROUS cap of 7.5MW. At that cap, we will have installed, what N.J installed in 2013, by the year of 2058. YES TENNESSEE, WE ARE SOLAR JOKES and the hard working students , learning solar will have to move to find work.

BY THE WAY__ 20 states did 50 MG last year and this year we do 7.5MG.

Politicians shout loudly how TN will be a leader in solar. Well Mr. Politicians , you have forgotten who controls TVA, and it ain’t you.

Jim Lindsey, A surprised solar pioneer. http://WWW.solarplexusco.com

Just enjoying my second “green” wiener from TVA. And not the “green” they smile and say we are for it, put in a couple of systems

You will not find this is TVA’s history but the helped usher 42 solar water companies out of the business. I find they smile then get very mean when someone sells a device that gets free energy from the sun. President Carter’s mandate to do solar for their Valley, yet it is not mentioned in their illustrious history.

Also they will not even consider 10kW system as someone posted..

A monopoly is bad enough BUT WE DEAL WITH A POWERFUL POLITICAL MONOPOLY.
Who apparently sees the handwriting on the wall. Nobody bucks TVA and wins. They have more power(pardon the pun) than any state official. I heard first hand from someone on the Governors’ energy staff, “We do not fool with TVA.”

They know we need their product, so are not sweating a boycott.
The public may protest but they are so in love with what TVA provides, I seriously doubt they will.

How wonderful it would feel to have an energy producing home, where rates don’t double every ten years, no ugly wires subject to weather and rates that double every ten years. Today they are a dime a kilowatt, 20 cents in ten years, 40 cents in 20 years, and 80 cents in 30 years. Meaning your, or someone’s utility will be 30 times what is today

My home will be in heaven by then but I love my offspring.


Comment by Jim Lindsey on May 11, 2013 1:07 am


The SACE Blog Post is GREAT; however it does not mention the 30% federal tax credit (see below) and Modified Accelerated Cost Recover System federal INVESTMENT in solar arrays regardless of size. The TVA mismanagement of even the application process means that communities lose the nearly 50% of the project ECONOMIC BENEFIT by the federal tax credit and MACRS. This is especially impactful in Memphis where Sharp manufactures the solar modules.

Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System
An accounting technique used in the United States to tax a tangible asset based upon its estimated depreciation. The estimated depreciation bears only a rough relationship to an asset’s actual life, and is designed to decrease the taxation in the early years of an asset’s ownership. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System replaced the Accelerated Cost Recovery System in 1986, and increased the deductions an owner is allowed to take in the early years of ownership.


Comment by Lynn Strickland on May 13, 2013 1:35 pm


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.