California Public Power SB1 Solar Program Calendar Year ... · California Public Power SB1 Solar Program Status Report January through December 2014 Reporting Period July 1, 2015

California Public Power

SB1 Solar Program

Calendar Year 2014

Status Report

July 1, 2015

California Public Power SB1 Solar Program Status ReportJanuary through December 2014 Reporting Period

July 1, 2015 Page 2

INTRODUCTION

The California Municipal Utilities Association, the Northern California Power Agency, and the SouthernCalifornia Public Power Authority are pleased to present this annual report on the progress local publiclyowned utilities (POU) have made in implementing the California Solar Initiative. With programimplementation more than halfway complete, the State’s POUs offer this comprehensive report to helpcontextualize significant progress that has been made since 2008 that may not otherwise be evident by a“single year snapshot.” The report highlights the following:

POUs continue to offer attractive customer incentives to further SB1 goals, while maintaininglow electricity rates.

POUs are on track to fully expend the funds made available before the program sunsets and, ifinstallations continue at their current rate, public power will exceed the Energy Commission’santicipated installed capacity.

POU programs are designed to meet a statutory expenditure requirement; this design featureis extremely important as it allowed numerous POUs to offer higher rebate levels in early yearsto best encourage voluntary customer participation in more expensive solar systems, during aneconomic downturn and absent significantly higher “top tier” rates that principally drivecustomer investments in other service territories.

Each POU is different and each has tailored its solar program for its customers accordingly;POUs have been and continue to be successful in providing attractive incentives to customersto further SB1 goals.

The amount of installed kilowatts (kW) has increased an average of 8,000 to 9,000 kWannually.

The cost per installed kW has declined, and a self-sufficient solar industry has emerged.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide a comprehensive review of SB1 program results to date withinthe context of a full understanding of the variety and number of publicly-owned utility programs.

STATE SENATE BILL 1 (SB1) BACKGROUND

SB1 was signed into law on August 21, 2006. The legislation requires each POU governing body to adopt,implement, and finance a solar initiative program to incentivize investments in and encourage the increasedinstallation of both residential and commercial solar energy systems beginning on January 1, 2008.California’s Public Resources Code §25780 define three legislative goals for the California Solar Initiative:

1. To install solar energy systems with a generation capacity equivalent of 3,000 megawatts;2. To establish a self-sufficient solar industry in which solar energy systems are a viable

mainstream option for both homes and businesses in 10 years; and3. To place solar energy systems on 50% of new homes in 13 years.

POUs play an important role in supporting the 3,000 megawatt (MW) goal established by SB1. It must alsobe noted that while these three legislative goals provide general direction to State agencies and utilitiesabout the initiative’s objectives, mandatory requirements and actions are defined in different statutory


July 1, 2015 Page 3

sections. For POUs, these primary statutory requirements can be found in Public Utilities Code §2854:1

Subdivision (a) states that POUs shall adopt, implement, and finance a solar initiative program. Subdivision (b) requires that POUs provide a minimum incentive of $2.80 per watt for the

installation of solar energy systems, and that the incentive declines at a rate of no less than anaverage of 7% per year.

Subdivision (c) directs that POUs initiate a proceeding to fund a solar energy program toadequately support the goal of installing 3,000 MWs of photovoltaic solar energy.

Subdivision (f) defines “adequately support the goal of installing 3,000 MWs” by requiringstatewide expenditures for POU solar programs must be $784 million, and also establishes thebaseline expenditure level for each POU based on that utility’s percentage of the totalstatewide load served by all POUs.

As required by statute, POUs adhere to overall expenditure goals for the California Solar Initiative program.(Some POUs have voluntarily adopted MW goals as well). Annual expenditure levels for each POU varyconsiderably based primarily on the size of the utility and local governing body decision-making; somePOUs have also undertaken additional steps to finance other related expenses to further incentivize solarenergy system installations in their service territories. For example, where some POUs offered theminimum incentive of $2.80/watt at the start of the program in 2008, others offered higher rebate levels tobegin with – some in combination with rebate caps – in order to incentivize higher customer participationlevels during an extended period of nationwide economic hardship. Even in recent years, with theeconomy slowly improving, the average POU residential utility rates have ranged from approximately 8-17cents per kWh. These low rates remain a significant factor in customers’ determinations to invest in solar.Customers in other service territories with much higher “top tier” rates have a much greater incentive toinvest in solar to avoid paying dramatically higher rates overall.

Beginning June 2008, POUs have been required to report annually information relating to the utility’s solarinitiative program(s), including the number of photovoltaic solar watts installed, the total number ofphotovoltaic systems installed, the total number of applicants, the amount of incentives awarded, and thecontribution towards program goals. Beginning in 2013, annual progress reports are due July 1st.

PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITY SB1 PROGRAM PROGRESS THROUGH 2014

POUs are actively promoting the State’s objectives under SB1 via marketing, community outreach,workshops, and working with solar installers. While program expenditures decreased in 2014, some arealready forecasting that more money will be spent on administrative costs than the actual amount ofincentives being given due to the annual decreasing tier incentive requirement. Also, some do not chargetheir expenditures as part of the SB1 program, so were not included as an associated cost in administeringit. On the incentives paid, the amount has almost doubled in 2014 compared to the prior reporting year.This increase can be attributed to several factors such as: continued strong interest in a rebate program forsome communities; overall economic improvement in some areas; additional incentives offered by someinstallers; and prior year installation completed in 2014 or incentives that were on hold due to budgetconstraints until 2014. While a quarter of the entities saw a decrease in incentives paid that can beattributed to several factors, including: that some communities are still significantly affected by the

1 SB 1 added §387.5 to the Public Utilities Code regarding POU requirements. This section was renumbered to §2854 byAssembly Bill 2227 (Bradford, 2012).


July 1, 2015 Page 4

economic downturn; installation costs continue to decrease; funds for the program have been exhausted orthe program is temporarily suspended resulting in a queue; more applications received than fundsavailable, some homeowners forgo the incentives and front the costs, some applications did not meet therequirements for incentives or had incomplete applications, some did not complete their approved rebates,or no applications were received while prior applications from previous years were fulfilled.

Some utilities have already exhausted their SB1 funding but continue to receive applications. Theseutilities still accept applications and assist customers to the greatest extent possible. Customers are madeaware when program funds are exhausted or if there are no rebates available, yet for most, due to thedecreasing installation costs, some still proceed with having the installation work performed. This indicatesthat even with no incentives available, customers are still interested in having PV systems installed and thata self-sufficient solar industry has emerged.

Many utilities maintain a “funds reserved” amount, which can represent applications received yetinstallations have not been completed, or in some cases installations are completed and incentive fundsare to be paid over time in future years. In both cases, the utilities reserve these funds from the incentivesavailable under the life of the program to enable payments. These numbers are significant as they illustratea future commitment. It should be noted that there are a few utilities that have no reserves allocatedprimarily because they have reached their SB1 funding or budget limitations.

A growing number of utilities are approaching or have already exhausted their program fund commitment.In a few cases, programs were shut down temporarily. A few utilities were able to reopen the program mid-year, but had to quickly close it again due to the amount of applications and funds available. Depending onthe robustness of the program response, some utilities capped the rebate amount by sector and/orallocated a limited time period for applications to help control the influx of applications. The experience ofeach POU is unique, reflecting the localized nature of development and saturation of solar programs acrossthe diverse service territories.

Some installers are offering leasing or power purchase agreement options to help offset some of the costs,which has helped in some areas, but not in all. While in other communities, some customers chose toinstall PV systems even without a rebate because they want to take advantage of long-term energysavings. In the past few years, a number of communities have authorized Property Assessed CleanEnergy (PACE) financing which allows property owners to finance solar energy systems with no moneydown and payment through their property tax bills.

Some POUs that previously had few applications are experiencing increased participation, driven bydevelopers or contractors who approach owners of buildings with large open space roofs, such as industrialand commercial buildings. The contractors and developers offer a combination of services includingfinancing, lease-back, and other unique structures to incent participation. In most areas, developers,contractors and PV installers have become very effective trade allies in marketing POU rebate programs.In addition, developers and contractors are aware of other tax incentives that they bring forth whenapproaching the customer.

In sum, local electric utilities are making a good faith effort and are successfully progressing to meet SB1goals. Utilities that have already met or exceeded their goals continue to assist customers with theirinstallation needs even without a rebate incentive. The POUs have also played an important role towards


July 1, 2015 Page 5

establishing a self-sufficient solar industry in which solar energy systems are a viable mainstream option forcustomers.

PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITY SB1 PROGRAM CHALLENGES

Multiple factors influence a customer’s decision to invest in solar. Some factors are related to the utility,such as the rate structure and level of incentives as described above. POU rates are, on average,approximately 25% lower than IOU rates that typically include highly tiered rate structures, meaning it iseasier to incentivize solar installations in an IOU service area instead of a POU service area. POUs canalso have a mix of customers that is sharply different and far more concentrated than in the broad serviceareas covered by the IOUs, and this can affect how a SB1 program is designed and the ultimate success ofthat program.

Many other factors, though, are customer-motivated – and are beyond the scope of POUs to influence. Forexample, some POUs serve very poor communities that are still suffering from exceptionally highunemployment rates. Access to competitive solar companies also plays a key role in whether or not autility customer decides to invest in solar for their home or business. Customers in remote POU serviceterritories are impacted by less availability of solar providers. Large urban centers, such as the Bay Area,Los Angeles, and San Diego, naturally attract solar companies given that greater market opportunities areavailable. More rural communities, in which the populations are not as great or not as concentrated, aremore difficult and less profitable for some solar companies to serve.

Solar installations – even with an incentive contribution by the local utility or other tax incentives, andreduced cost of panels – are still expensive, especially for the areas deeply affected by the recession andstruggling with exceptionally high unemployment rates. Even then, customers would still need to pay aportion of the installation costs.

While in some areas, solar installations and applications for commercial buildings have decreased due tothe declining incentive rate. Although there the residential sector continues to see an increase ininstallations, the decreasing incentive already has some utilities looking into the possibility of a communitysolar program for their territories.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to a number of factors (but largely due to lower electricity rates and the economic recession)participation rates in POU programs were generally low in the early years of SB1. In more recent years,customers are increasingly taking advantage of POU solar incentives, even as those incentives decline –as required by statute. One reason for increased participation rates is that overall system costs havedecreased significantly in recent years, such that declining incentives were largely offset by less expensivesystems. In addition, leasing solar PV systems has proven to be a popular financing mechanism andallows customers to install solar at a lower cost than owning the system outright. The recent availability ofPACE financing is expected to make solar available to even more customers who otherwise cannot affordthe initial installation costs.

To support continued progress towards reaching the State’s solar goals, we would recommend that theEnergy Commission work with POUs to clarify evolving reporting requirements and to formalize a processprospectively to ensure that POUs’ issues and challenges are understood and addressed when providing


July 1, 2015 Page 6

annual progress reports. For example, discrepancies can arise when POUs are asked to only reportpayments made for current-year installations and not to include other public benefits payments that weremade in the current year for systems installed in prior years. Some POUs require participants to own theirsolar systems, which leads to under-reporting for the purposes of the SB1 solar report. Also, in the pasttotal expenditures listed may have also included the incentives reserved/awarded/paid per the descriptionwithin the reporting cell and instructions. This year it was clarified that the Total Expenditures should notinclude incentives paid during the reporting year. Since looking at the annual reports does not give anoverall picture of the 10-year program and if there is inconsistency in the totals provided in the annualreports due to the changes in interpretation, then it can lead to incomplete and/or erroneous understandingof the information being requested and reported. We look forward to continuing to work closer with theCEC on reporting SB1 programs annually.

In response to the required annual reporting, the table on the following page provides summary informationbased on the individual SB1 Solar Program Status Reports for 2014, which are contained herein.


July 1, 2015 Page 7

Notes:*Cerritos is listed, but all line items are marked as N/A. Their solar rebate incentives are administered bySCE and captured within that reporting program.- Other fields listed N/A denotes information not available at time of publication.

Number of

Applicants

Systems

Installed

Installed

Capacity

(kW)

Total 2014

Expenditures

(Non-

Incentives)

Total

Incentives Paid

in 2014

Incentives

Reserved

Alameda 3 1 7 10,766$ 385,369$ 500,000$

Anaheim 427 284 3,695 85,831$ 3,671,721$ 3,092,756$

Azusa 8 9 45 -$ 58,179$ 197,272$

Banning 14 14 86 27,330$ -$ -$

Biggs 2 - - 400$ -$ 9,550$

Burbank 17 17 117 38,146$ 475,136$ 288,301$

Cerritos* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Colton 30 28 120 162,043$ 419,850$ 162,043$

Corona - - - -$ -$ -$

Glendale 134 93 649 -$ 1,772,971$ 1,390,413$

Gridley - - - -$ -$ -$

Healdsburg 25 23 144 104,757$ 87,298$ 39,408$

IID 448 158 1,426 2,294,235$ 1,613,146$ 14,281,627$

Industry - - - -$ -$ -$

Lassen 5 5 118 12,731$ 72,000$ -$

Lodi 63 58 268 517,304$ 367,304$ -$

Lompoc 22 18 161 -$ 218,072$ 230,380$

Los Angeles (LADWP) 4,598 3,281 24,587 3,262,700$ 199,580,000$ 37,079,000$

Merced 88 86 1,119 N/A 450,000$ -$

Modesto 482 451 4,691 5,409,432$ 5,117,432$ 20,662,381$

Moreno Valley 157 132 713 852,613$ 778,447$ 226,883$

Needles 2 2 19,320 322,251$ 22,251$ -$

Palo Alto 70 92 2,048 133,429$ 1,294,677$ 3,241,547$

Pasadena 166 133 1,379 134,704$ 2,620,875$ 3,649,885$

Pittsburgh Power Company

(dba Island Energy) 5 5 49 4,536$ 64,411$ 18,053$

Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric

Cooperative 16 16 61 184,156$ 101,293$ -$

Port of Oakland - - - -$ -$ 270,680$

Rancho Cucamonga 5 1 27 239,816$ 61,094$ 178,722$

Redding 158 100 825 81,619$ 1,268,754$ 332,964$

Riverside 447 435 3,556 -$ 1,841,692$ 2,648,288$

Roseville 441 437 1,467 757,602$ 694,602$ 917,000$

Sacramento (SMUD) 2,398 2,009 10,299 2,112,808$ 15,565,553$ 123,020,364$

San Francisco N/A 676 2,999 3,940,686$ 2,054,000$ 3,051,663$

Shasta Lake 1 2 32 101,750$ 101,750$ -$

Silicon Valley Power 119 48 732 44,427$ 4,330,551$ 22,620,350$

Trinity N/A 1 2 -$ -$ -$

Truckee Donner 37 34 153 334,013$ 293,614$ -$

Turlock (TID) 307 307 5,043 3,029$ 3,419,579$ 4,675,178$

Ukiah 10 7 47 51,379$ 51,379$ -$

Vernon 1 1 357 -$ 34,808$ 661,343$

Victorville - - - -$ -$ -$

Totals: 10,706 8,964 86,341 21,224,492$ 248,887,806$ 243,446,049$

Contact Person:Email Address:

Total

Number of

Apps Rcvd Apps Approved

Apps

Rejected/

CancelledEPBI 2 1 1

PBI 1

Total 3 1 1

Number of Installations per Building TypeExisting Buildings 1

New Construction Tier INew Construction Tier II

Total (of all sectors) 1

Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 6.838 18,950 10,766$

Non-ProfitGovernment

Total (of all sectors) 6.838 18,950 10,766$

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

385,369$ 4,200,000$ -$ 2,127 kW

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Residential and commercial rebates are fully subscribed.

Senate Bill 1 Solar Program Status Report

Utility Name: Alameda Municipal Power Susan [email protected]

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014Program Activities

Summary of Program Activities: In CY2014, 2 EPBI commercial rebate applications were received; 1 was

approved, but not yet installed, 1 withdrawn. 1 PBI commercial rebate

application was received, approval pending; 1 residential installation

was completed.

Program Performance

Systems Installed and Installed Capacity per Sector

Category TypeTotal Systems

Installed

1

Residential - Affordable/ Low IncomeCommercial

Additional Information (as available)

IndustrialAgriculturalMixed-Use

1

Total Expenditures Incentives

Reserved

10,766$ 500,000$

Any auditing of installed systems: Verified that installation is correct and operating properly when the

solar meter is set. AMP requires two meters.

Solar program information on website at: www.alamedamp.com/solar-rebates-residential

www.alamedamp.com/solar-rebates-business

Known customer application issues/applications not approved: None

Non PV solar systems installed: None

Any training or builder/installer assistance: None

Utility Name: Anaheim Public Utilities Contact Person: Mark Brownrigg

Email Address: [email protected]

Program Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2014

Summary of Program Activities: Solar rebate program for residential, commercial, and school properties.

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 412 392 19PBI 15 16 1

Total 427 408 20

Number of Installations per Building Type

Existing Buildings 284

New Construction Tier I

New Construction Tier II


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid(Reporting Period for

Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 1,476 2,485,946 $2,101,638

- - -

2,168 3,821,756 $177,603

Non-Profit 51 86,000 $146,000

Government - - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

3,695 6,393,702 $2,425,241

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting Period

for Installations)

SB 1 Funding(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)

kW/MW Goal(Life of Program)

$3,671,721 $35,055,800 $12,176,706 22 MW


Program Activities

Program Performance

Future Opportunities and Challenges:

Total Expenditures

During Reporting Period

(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

TOTAL (all sectors)


Agricultural

1

Residential - Affordable/ Low Income

-

14


Category Type

$85,831

269

-

-

284

Total Systems

Installed

$3,092,756

Industrial

Mixed-Use

-

-

Solar program information on website at: www.anaheim.net/utilities/solar


Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Contractors oversizing systems make up 10% of

the received applications. Customer is allowed to downsize their system to be in compliance with the program

by not exceeding 100% of historical customer usage.

Any training or builder/installer assistance: Program Manager offered two solar energy informational sessions

for residents and two informational sessions for contractors during the reporting year.

Any auditing of installed systems: 15% of the installed systems are audited by a third party contractor. All

systems are inspected by the Building Dept. inspector.

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 8 8PBI

Total 8 8






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 31.345 80087 43728

14.03 35846 14451

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 45.375 115933 58179

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

58179 327100 1978108 3000 kW/3 MW

Future Opportunities and Challenges:There is currently a waiting list for new systems.


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Any training or builder/installer assistance:

Any auditing of installed systems:

Utility Name: Azusa Light & Water

Program Reporting Period: 1-1-14 to 12-31-14

Summary of Program Activities:


Agricultural

Total Systems

Installed


Non PV solar systems installed:

Known customer application issues/applications not approved:

197272


Program Activities

Program Performance

Paul Reid

[email protected]

0

8

9

Solar program information on website at: http://www.ci.azusa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=565

1


Category Type

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI 14 14

Total 14 14


Existing Buildings



Total (of all sectors)

Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 86 134,488 0

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 86 134,488 0

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

None 1,965,123 None n/a

Solar program information on website at:

None

None

None

http://ca-banning.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=300


Category Type

27,330

14

14

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Veronica Craghead

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities: Due to Banning's aggressive marketing of its Solar PV Rebate Program, it met

and exceeded its SB1 rebate requirements in 2010. As a result Solar PV rebate funds are exhausted and the

program has been temporarily suspended pending allocation of additional funding.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: As PV installation costs continue to decrease, Banning continues to

receive Interconnection Agreements from customers wishing to install PV systems, although there are no

rebates available.

None

None

Industrial

Mixed-Use



Utility Name: City of Banning

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014


Agricultural


Reserved

Commercial




Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 2 2 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 2 2 0



New Construction Tier I 0New Construction Tier II 0


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 0 0 0

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 0 0 0

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

0 $181,153.00 $128,621.62 161


None

None

None

www.biggs-ca.gov


Category Type

$400.00

0


Program Activities

Program Performance

Marlee Mattos

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities: Continued to promote solar PV through customer education and the

dissemination of program information to contractors. Advised customers of program incentives through billing

fliers and city newsletter.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: We are a poor community with few customers able or willing to make the

investment in a solar PV system. Our housing stock is old, so available dollars are spent on modest efficiency

projects, rather than solar PV. As the economy has improved slightly, we are receiving more inquiries regarding

solar PV.

0

Total Systems

Installed




$9,550.00



Utility Name: Biggs Municipal Utilities

Program Reporting Period: 1/1/14 through 12/31/14


Agricultural


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 17 17PBI

Total 17 17






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 90.02 140,023 $102,153

26.59 41,477 $24,086

Non-Profit

Government

116.61 181500 $126,239

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting

Period for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


$475,136 up to $15 million $4,931,424 *N/A

Any training or builder/installer assistance: Phone and email assistance available from Solar Support Program

managers.

Any auditing of installed systems: All systems given incentives were audited by a third party consultant.

Solar program information on website at: http://burbankwaterandpower.com/incentives-for-all-

customers/solar-photovoltaic-power

Utility Name: Burbank Water and Power

Program Reporting Period: CY 2014


Agricultural

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial


$288,301

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)

* Note: BWP adopted a budgetary goal, not a kW goal.




Program Activities

Program Performance

Alfred Antoun

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities: 16 residential and 1 commercial application were received and approved

during CY 2014. All 17 installations which received rebates are on existing sites. Total PBI incentives in CY 2014

paid for solar systems installed in previous years amount to $348,897 and are included in the Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting Year field. The Incentives Reserved field includes those PBI incentives projected to be paid for

those installations.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Due to decreasing solar costs, 41 of the 58 systems installed in CY 2014

were without incentive.

1


Category Type

$38,146

16

17

Total Systems

Installed

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number

of Apps

Rcvd Apps Approved

Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 30 28 2PBI 0

Total 30






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 119.596 162,042.61

Non-Profit 93,179.96

Government

880,469.13

Total (of all sectors) 119.596 973,649.09 162,042.61

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds Remaining kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

419,850.41 4,275,125 961,972.88 4MW

The City of Colton Electric Department (CED) offered residential rebates

for qualifying photovoltaic generation systems up to 3 kW for the

reporting year of 2014. During this reporting period CED paid 2 customer

applicants under the program guidelines at $2.26/kW. The remaining 26

customer applicants were paid at $2.01/kW. CED promotes the solar

rebate program through a community public access channel, press

releases, social media, and the City website. The solar rebate program was

completely subscribed in the first 3 hours the program opened.

Future Opportunities and

Challenges:Opportunities: CED continues to make changes to ensure program success.

This year CED approved PACE financing in the City of Colton which

provided financing for customers that may not qualify for conventional

financing.

Challenges: This reporting year continued to have the challenge of more

applicants than funding. CED also experienced solar venders demanding

energy data of customers. CED is working on developing an online data

request form so we can verify the customer has approved this information

to be released.


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use



Utility Name: City of Colton Electric Dept.

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014



Agricultural

Total Systems

Installed



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: CED had one customer loan fall

through and declined the rebate

162,042.61


Program Activities

Program Performance

Jessica Sutorus

[email protected]

162,042.61

28

28


0

In 2014 CED approved PACE HERO financing for customers.

Approved PACE contractors receive training.

All PV systems are inspected for final building permit by the building

official.

www.coltononline.com


Category Type

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 0 0 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0

Number of Installations per Building Type 0




Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations


0 0 0

0 0 0

Non-Profit 0 0 0

Government 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0


Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds Remaining kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

0 $2,116,800 $2,113,394 1.89 MW

None

0



Agricultural

0

Commercial

Industrial 0


0



Reserved

Mixed-Use

$0

0


Program Activities

Program Performance

Michael TenEyck

[email protected]

Utility Name: City of Corona Dept of Water & Power

No additional inquires or applications were received regarding the City's

SB 1 solar rebate program during calendar year 2014.


January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014


0

0

0

Total Systems

Installed


0


None

No

No

www.discovercoronadwp.com

0


Category Type

Program Reporting Period:

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 134 134 7PBI 0 0 0

Total 134 134 7





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 624.22 1,014,616 1,118,337

0 0 0

25.06 44,976 88,533

Non-Profit 0 0 0

Government 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

649.28 1,059,592.00 1,206,870

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


1,772,971 15,271,000 3,000,000 17 MW

www.glendalewaterandpower.com



Utility Name: Glendale Water and Power




Agricultural

0

Accepted new EPBI applications and continued paying out PBI

applications (received in prior years).


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



0


1,390,413

Industrial

Mixed-Use

0

0

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Aneta Badalian

[email protected]


none

none

none

2


Category Type

0

91

0

0

93

Total Systems

Installed

Some projects were cancelled.

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI

Total 0 0 0


Existing Buildings




Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate

Non-Profit

Government

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


$0.00 $435,000.00 $411,125.04 350 kW



Utility Name: City of Gridley




Agricultural

No new applications were received and no rebates were paid for systems

installed in the City's service territory.


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: none

$0.00

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Mark Gosvener

[email protected]


none

There was no additional training or special assistance

provided to builders or installers.

All sites are subject to an energy audit prior to reservation of SB1 funds

and 100% of systems are inspected by a third-party (post-installation) to

verify that the system performance matches the EPBB inputs.

http://www.gridley.ca.us/sites/default/files/files/Doc

uments/electric-department/PVGuidelines.pdf


Category Type

$0.00

Total Systems

Installed

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 25 23 0

PBI

Total 25 23 0






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 79.5 139284 42666.68

96.6 169243.2 44631.02

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 143.69 308527.2 87297.7

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

87,297.70$ 950,000.00$ 154,525.00$ 668.4

Yes, http://healdsburgutilities.org/235/Solar-PV



Utility Name: Healdsburg Electric Department

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014



Agricultural

In CY2014 the City interconnected 23 PV systems; 18 residential units

and 5 commercial units.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Program is well developed and functioning.


Reserved

Commercial



39,408.00$

Industrial

Mixed-Use


Program Activities

Program Performance

Terry Crowley

[email protected]


none

none needed

none

5


Category Type

104,757.24$

18

23

Total Systems

Installed


Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 419 259 21PBI 29 25 2

Total 448 284 23





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)


633 3641012 64027

Non-Profit

Government 11 20327

1426 5136347

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds Remaining(Life of Program)


1,613,145.71$ 14,281,626.97$ 40,219,809.00$ 22,192,712.00$ 44 MW

Any training or builder/installer assistance: None

Any auditing of installed systems: System inspections performed at the time system is energized (100%)

Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Reasons for customer cancellations range from

incomplete applications, missed Milestone stage deadlines, customer financial reasons, or contractor decisions to

cancel.

Category Type

152

Total Systems

Installed



Agricultural

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial


Zero

www.iid.com/solar

5


2,294,234.57$

158


1

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors) 571137


Program Activities

Program Performance

Javier Camarillo

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities: Imperial Irrigation District offers rebates to residential and non-residential customers

that install qualifying photovoltaic generation systems. During this reporting period, IID paid out 13 Performance Based

Incentive (PBI) payments and 167 Expected Performance Based Incentive (EPBI) payments. IID maintained the system

size cap of 15 kW (residential), 300 kW (commercial), and 400 kW (government/non-profits) set in 2010 to allow for an

increased number of participants. The district promotes the PV/Solar Solutions program through a variety of channels

including our website, community events and workshops.

Future Opportunities: Imperial Irrigation District continues to make changes to ensure program success. These changes

include modifications to program requirements, rebate caps and verification of installed equipment. Future adjustments

to incentive rate could improve customer participation. The IID's program guidelines comply with SB1 mandates and are

consistent with the CEC's Guidelines for California Solar Electric Incentive Programs.

Utility Name: Imperial Irrigation District

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014


Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 0 0 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 0 0 -$

0 0 -$

0 0 -$

Non-Profit 0 0 -$

Government 0 0 -$

0 0 -$

0 0 -$

0 0 -$

0 0 -$

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


-$ -$ 264

None

Solar program information on website at: NA


Category Type

-$

0

0

0

0

Total Systems

Installed

Commercial



Program Activities

Program Performance

Richard Mrlik

[email protected]

Utility Name: City of Industry



0

Industrial

Mixed-Use

0

0

TOTAL (all sectors)

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Known customer application

issues/applications not approved:

Two main issues are: i) Low rates and flat TOU pricing marginalizes

solar economics, 2) Impact of installed panel on rooftop integrity and

long-term maintenance costs discourages PV installation



None



Agricultural

0

Drafted solar incentive program specifying kW Goal and SB1 Funding

amount. Evaluation PV projects to utilize SB1 funds.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Industry has flat time-of-use rate and competitive rate structure which

has made customer owned PV uneconomic.

0

0


Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 5 5 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 5 5 0






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 8.2 20,264 8,000

0 0 0

9.8 15,000 18,000

Non-Profit 0 0 0

Government 0 0 0

0 0 0

100 153,700 46,000

118 188,964 72,000

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


72,000 1,400,000 195,269 866,237

Solar program information on website at: www.lmud.org/rebates

1


Category Type

12,731

2

0

5

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Theresa Phillips

[email protected]



0


0

Industrial

Mixed-Use

0

2

TOTAL (all sectors)

Any training or builder/installer assistance: No

Any auditing of installed systems: Yes. We inspect and monitor each system.

Utility Name: Lassen




Agricultural

0

5 rebates were issued for qualified projects.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Lassen's service territory is largely low-come, which makes it

challenging to market solar in this area.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 63 58 5PBI

Total 63 58 5






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)


Non-Profit

Government

267.5 401,250 367,304$

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


367,304$ 6,100,000$ 2,476,849$ 5,326.6 kW


none

none

none

www.lodielectric.com


Category Type

517,304$

58

58

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Adam Brucker

[email protected]




-$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)



Utility Name: City of Lodi Electric Utility




Agricultural

There were 63 applications received and 58 rebates approved and

processed. The application requests exceeded the program budget. A

lottery system was used to select program participants.


Interest in solar PV installations continues to be high among LEU

customers. There are several active contractors working LEU's service

territory. LEU anticipates the 2015 budget being fully utilized.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 21 17 4

PBI 1 1

Total 22 18 4






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 67.469 115,993 98,071.95

93.997 153,094

Non-Profit

Government

161.466 269,087 98,071.95

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


218,071.95$ 1,746,000.00$ 831,994.00$ N/A

Solar program information on website at: www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/conservation


Category Type

-$

17

1

18

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Jennifer Main

[email protected]




230,379.50$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)



Utility Name: City of Lompoc




Agricultural

A total of 161.47 kW of solar was installed during 2014 for residential

buildings. No commercial installations were installed.


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Future Opportunities and Challenges:Accommodating the growing demand for residential solar incentives continues to be a challenging task for LADWP. LADWP

has made great strides by transitioning the SIP to PowerClerk, a web-based solar application tool, but there is still room for

improvements across the various stages of the incentive process. The influx of the numerous solar leasing entities in Los

Angeles has significantly increased customer interest in solar. Providing an acceptable turnaround time for reservation

reviews, solar inspections, and payment processing with the increasing demand for solar will be a challenging but absolutely

necessary task for LADWP. It is also worth noting that at the lower incentive levels the cost to administer the program,

perform field verification, and process incentive payments becomes significant. There will be cases where the cost will

outweigh the incentive provided to customers. While LADWP is continuously pursuing additional measures to streamline the

program, the CEC should also consider new policies to simplify SB1 requirements to help utilities save on program

administration and make more $ available for incentives.

SB1 contains restrictive energy efficiency requirements that are expensive and cumbersome for applications. LADWP is

observing a growing trend of non-residential, new construction, and major renovation applicants installing solar in LADWP’s

service territory without the incentive. The demonstrates that at the lower incentive levels the SB1 requirements may

challenging for some, but it also shows that the installation of non-residential solar is cost effective without the utility rebate.

Since program conception, LADWP offered an incentive premium to obtain ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits

(RECs) from their customers. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted RPS policies that adversely affect the value of

RECs acquired through the SIP. The CEC has declared that RECs acquired through the SIP are classified as Portfolio Content

Category 3, which are worth significantly less than RECs classified as Portfolio Content Category 1.

Utility Name: LADWP



Program Activities

Peter Liang

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities:The LADWP Solar Incentive Program (SIP) received an average of 400 solar incentive applications a month in 2014. The

majority of applications received were for residential retrofit projects. The LADWP facilitated the installation of over 24MW

of solar photovoltaic systems in 2014, equating to approximately 40 GWh solar generation. As of December 31, 2014, there

are 98MW of SB1 solar projects online in LADWP's service territory and $200M incentives were distributed.

LADWP budgets $288M for incentive payments and $25M for administration and outreach. Funding for incentive payments is

divided evenly between residential and non-residential customers. As of December 31, 2014, approximately $40M remains

for residential customers and $11M for non-residential customers. The residential incentive is $0.40/watt, the non-

residential incentive is $0.70/watt, and the non-profit incentive is $1.45/watt. The non-residential incentive was higher than

the residential incentive because of the low application rate of non-residential projects.

In August 2014, the LADWP Board of Water and Power Commissioners approved a set of major changes to the SIP to help

streamlining program processes and reduce delays. LADWP added additional staffing to process incentive payments and

performance inspections.

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 4598 4078 283

PBI 0 0 0

Total 4598 4078 283



New Construction Tier I 59

New Construction Tier II 2


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 15,728 25951200 4532724

212 349800 274621

5666 9348900 3079281

Non-Profit 787 1298550 603973

Government 2194 3620100 1747802

24,587 40,568,550 10,238,401$

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


199,580,000$ 313,000,000$ 51,373,000$ 280


Every solar installation within the City of Los Angeles is inspected by both the Los Angeles Department of Building

and Safety and LADWP. These inspections verify compliance with local regulations and LADWP Electric Service

Requirements, and determine the final incentive payment.


LADWP does not offer any formal training for solar installers/builders on solar technology or installation. However,

reference documentation is available on the LADWP solar website (www.ladwp.com/solar) which provides solar

installation tips, common mistakes/violations found on solar installations, and sample solar electrical drawings. No

formal training or education is offered by LADWP to solar installers or builders. LADWP does support education

and training through the local Community College District and Electrical Training Institute of Southern California.


Approximately 6% of the applications submitted in 2014 were cancelled or rejected. Most cancellations and

rejections are due to incompleteness and failure to submit required documentation. A number of application were

canceled/rejected due to the cost of meeting energy efficiency requirements being greater than the value of the

incentive.


Agricultural

19

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)

Program Performance


None

www.ladwp.com/solar

70


Category Type

3,262,700$

3174

12

3281

Total Systems

Installed

6

37,079,000$

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI 88 86 2

Total 88 86 2





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations


661 1176000 241500

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 1119 1932000

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

$450,000 $450,000/yr. $450,000/yr. 4.7MW


Ongoing meetings with numerous installers to explain

the program as well as our specifications and standards.Random internal reviews

http://www.mercedid.com/index.cfm/power/solar/

9


Category Type


Program Activities

Program Performance

VANESSA LARA

[email protected]

77

86

Total Systems

Installed



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Applications reported above as

not approved were canceled at

the customer's request.

0

366450



Utility Name: MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT




Agricultural

Customer outreach a public events. Program updates via website. In

person meeting with various solar vendors/installers.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Our rebate amount per watt AC is still relatively high compared to

other utilities. Participation in the program has exponentially

increased over the last couple of years. Increased participation has

also increased the number of customer calls/concerns.


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 473 442 31PBI 9 9 0

Total 482 451 31





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 2099 3,571,987 $1,635,825

21 35,026 $16,772

1754 3,059,951 $41,354

Non-Profit 30 54,000 $30,444

Government 263 289,302 $32,513

0 0 $0

524 901,113 $132,621

0 0 $0

Total (of all sectors) 4,691 7,911,379 $1,889,529

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

$5,117,432 $35,587,142 $14,924,761 30 MW


None

Note at this time

All SB1 PV installations are inspected to insure program rules and guideline

compliance.

http://www.mid.org/rebates/solar/default.htm

11


Category Type

$5,409,432

410

10

0

451

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Mike Zweifel / Bob Hondeville

[email protected] /[email protected]



3


$20,662,381

Industrial

Mixed-Use

0

13



Utility Name: Modesto Irrigation District

Program Reporting Period: Jan. 1, 2014 - Dec. 31, 2014



Agricultural

4

MID saw another huge increase in solar activity both with SB1 systems

as well as non-SB1 PV systems.



Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 157 157 25PBI 0 0 0

Total 157 157 25





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 657.5 1159.6 778,447

55.2 96.5 0

Non-Profit

Government

712.7 1256.1 778,447

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


778,447 N/A N/A N/A

Solar program information on website at: www.moval.org

2


Category Type

852,613

130

132

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Jeannette Olko

[email protected]




226,883

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)



Utility Name: City of Moreno Valley




Agricultural

Solar rebate program based on fiscal year - rebate for 2013/14 =

$2.00/watt. Rebate for 2014/15 = $1.75/watt


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI 2 2 0

Total 2 2 0





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid for

Reporting Year

Installations

Residential - Market Rate 7,320 63,164 $8,750.87

12,000 103,547 13,500.00

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 19,320 166,711 22,250.87

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

22,250.87 500,000 177,749.13 2% of non-renewable

None

CY 2014 was an unusually inactive year in solar PV installation. The ability of

homeowners to shoulder the lion's shares of the acquisition cost (ex-

municipal rebates and federal ITC) is the key determinant in the sales

dynamic. Needles is an economically challenged community. 42% of the

residents are on some form of County assistance of one form or another and

the MHI is $28,000.00.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: As noted above


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use



City of Needles




Agricultural

Total Systems

Installed




None


Program Activities

Program Performance

David Brownlee

[email protected]

322,250.87

1

2


None

None

Yes

1

177,749.13

Category Type

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 68 68 5PBI 2 3 0

Total 70 71 5




New Construction Tier II 16


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 391 625,609 $ 296,408

1,006 1,742,638 $ 458,381

Non-Profit 529 917,822 $ 226,614

Government 122 206,616 $ -

2,048.28 3,492,685 $ 981,403

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


$ 1,294,677 $ 13,000,000 $ 1,840,369 6.5 MW

Any auditing of installed systems: 10 of the 92 installations were inspected (11%)

Solar program information on website at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/pvpartners



Non PV solar systems installed: 11 solar water heating systems were installed on a multi-family complex

Any training or builder/installer assistance: Assistance provided on an as-requested basis


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

$ 133,429 $ 3,241,547

Industrial

Agricultural

Mixed-Use

2

Program Performance



Installed

80


Commercial 5

5

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Developing non-rebate solar program initiatives including Community

Solar and Group-Buy programs.


Utility Name: City of Palo Alto Utilities Lindsay Joye

[email protected]

Program Reporting Period: 1/1/14- 12/31/14

Program Activities

Summary of Program Activities: Hosted one residential workshop in May 2014. Residential rebate funds

were fully reserved in August 2014.

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 162 159 19PBI 4 4 1

Total 166 163 20






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 593 952,916.00 578,268.00$

124 206,297.00 449,543.00$

662 1,172,375.00 -$

Non-Profit

Government

Total (of all sectors) 1,379 2,331,588 1,027,811$

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


2,620,875$ 16,000,000$ (2,026,060)$ 14,000 kW

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

2



Program Reporting Period: January 1 to December 31, 2014



Agricultural

Total Systems

Installed





Program Activities

Program Performance

Mauricio Mejia

[email protected]

Utility Name: Pasadena Water and Power

Interest in solar power continues to remain strong in Pasadena especially

in the residential sector. In addition, solar leases account for more than

half of residential applications.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: PWP has been using PowerClerk to manage the solar program since

2013. Dealing with inexperienced installers remains our greatest

challenge.


Category Type


Assistance to installers and customers is provided over the

phone via PWP's Program Answerline at 626.744.6970

PWP inspect 100% of solar installations prior to issuing "Permission To

Operate" letter

www.PWPweb.com/solar

3,649,885$134,704$

126

5

133

PWP has very small number of

applications that aren't installed.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved


Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 5 5 0PBI

Total 5 5 0






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)


Non-Profit 24.735 42,462 29,469$

Government

48.686 84,377 64,436$

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


64,411$ 400,000$ 239,466$ 500 kW



Utility Name: Pittsburg Power Company




Agricultural

1

Continue to offer the highest rebate rate for solar installations.

Adopted Net Energy Metering Program


To track and claim distributed Solar for RPS compliance

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Upfront Investment, Historical

buildings

18,053$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Vanessa Xie

[email protected]


No

No

Utility Inspection. Monthly Solar Production Monitoring

www.islandenergy.com


Category Type

4,536$

4

5

Total Systems

Installed

Utility Name: Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 16 16PBI

Total 16 16






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 47.92 85,702 78,161.53

12.87 22,721 23,131.50

Non-Profit

Government

60.79 108,423 101,293.03

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


101,293.03 2,060,000 N/A N/A

Any auditing of installed systems: Verification of each system is completed during meter replacement. Energy

audit surveys are also required with the application.

Solar program information on website at: www.psrec.coop NOTE: PSREC is an electric cooperative. This report

is provided voluntarily to comply with the intent of SB1.





Agricultural

Provided rebates and educational information to encourage PV

installation.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: PSREC is pursuing a community solar installation.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial


N/A

0

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Corby Gardner

[email protected]

N/A

N/A

2


Category Type

184,156.03

14

16

Total Systems

Installed



Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 0 0 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)



Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


0 1,030,000.00$ 476,680.00$ 400



Utility Name: Port of Oakland




Agricultural

There was no activity during the reporting period.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: The Port of Oakland had no SB1 eligible applications during the reporting

period. However, the Port has one application under review for CY 2016

that will bring the total amount of SB 1 sponsored solar in the Port’s

service territory to 750 KW DC, which exceeds the Port’s 400 KW SB 1

objective as provided on the CEC’s website (Publicly Owned Utilities Life

of Program and Yearly Statistics - 2013. Posted August 13, 2014).

Total Expenditures During

Reporting Period (Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: 0

270,680.00$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Nicolas Procos

[email protected]


0

None

No

http://www.portofoakland.com/utility/eerp.aspx


Category Type

0

0

Total Systems

Installed

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 5 5 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 5 5 0





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)


27.15 50,372 61,094

Non-Profit

Government

27.15 50,372 61,094

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


61,094 1,250,000 899,334.99 1,190 kW



Utility Name: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility




Agricultural

One customer completed installation in 2014 and four applications were received

with installation being completed in 2015.

Future Opportunities and Challenges:With the increase in customer interest, staff reviewed and revised the rebate

program to guarantee funding will be available for multiple projects per year.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial




178,722

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Trina Valdez

[email protected]


None

None

Secondary meters are installed to capture total system generation. Audits are

performed after a full year of data has been recorded.

http://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/engineering/rcmu/rebates

/renewable.asp

1


Category Type

239,816

1

Total Systems

Installed

Program Reporting Period: January 01, 2014 to December 31,2014

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 158 136 9PBI 0 0 0

Total 158 136 9



New Construction Tier I 1New Construction Tier II


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 767.1 No 417,036.00$

generation

58.32 meters

Non-Profit installed

Government

825.42 n/a 417,036.00$

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life of

Program)


1,268,754.00$ 6,766,346.00$ 5,816,054.00$ 6.5MW

Any training or builder/installer assistance: System sizing and design training provided as needed.

Any auditing of installed systems: Each application was reviewed and field verified prior to Net Meter set.


None

www.reupower.com

1


Category Type

81,619.00$

99

100

Total Systems

Installed



Program Activities

Program Performance

Summary of Program Activities: August 5, 2014 REU reopened its rebate program @ $1.00 per watt installed with a

maximum of $10,000 per project. REU established a rebate budget for this rebate re-opening of $750,000; within 12

business hours, 100% of these funds had been allocated. Note: only $417,036 of the $750,000 has been paid,

leaving a balance of incentives reserved of $332,964.

Contact Person: Mike Adams

Email Address: [email protected]

Utility Name: Redding Electric Utility

Future Opportunities and Challenges: During FY16 Q1 - Q2, REU will evaluate another round of solar PV rebates to

complete its SB1 funding goals, which would result in a small cash reserve to cover final reporting labor costs.

During this same period, REU will also evaluate community solar as an alternative option for the use of Redding's

remaining SB1 funds, should REU determine this option provides better solar PV opportunities for all REU

customers.

Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Customers applying for interconnection

agreements on circuits that have reached their maximum penetration levels.


Agricultural

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial


332,964.00$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Challenges:

Solar program demand continues to exceed available local funding for both residential and non-residential PV programs.

While the average commercial installation has increased in 2014 to 76.69 kW AC from 40.89 kW AC in 2013 participation continues to be at a much slower pace

than residential PV systems with only eleven (11) commercial installations completed in the 2014 reporting cycle. Commercial PV systems are much more costly and

often face greater technical, structural or permitting challenges. Furthermore, commercial PV systems rarely offset the customer's entire electric demand and

therefore the return on investment is often much longer than comparable residential PV systems. In addition, many commercial customers lease rather than own

their own buildings and landlords are not motivated to install PV since utility costs are often passed on to the tenant in their lease costs. Improvement and growth in

the local economy may encourage additional commercial customers to consider PV installations.


Program Activities

Gerald Buydos

[email protected]

Utility Name: Riverside Public Utilities


Future Opportunities and Challenges: Solar program demand continues to exceed available local funding for both residential and non-residential PV programs.

Opportunities:

Solar hardware pricing continues to decline and the availability of attractive financing options continues to attract more residential participation. The incentives per

installed watt AC have continued to decline per SB1 guidelines, however the average residential system sizes have increased moderately. The average residential

system installation was 4.83 kW AC, 4.93 kW AC and 5.38 kW AC, for 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. Available Federal Tax Credits and expectations of lowered

energy bills, rather than utility rebate incentives are primarily driving customer decisions to install residential PV systems.

In 2014, 167 residential customers installed solar without an incentive compared to only 104 residential customers in 2013. This is further evidence that decreasing

PV system costs, alternative financing tools, along with the 30% Federal Tax Credit, have combined to make installing a PV system a mainstream option for many

homeowners who can afford it. RPU is currently surveying customers and evaluating opportunities in the future for creating a community solar program for those

customers where it is not feasible or practical to install solar at their residence or business.


In reporting year 2014, Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) continued to experience high demand for it's solar rebate program and installation of solar systems. RPU's

solar rebate program has assisted 809 customers with the installation of solar systems through the end of 2014.

During the SB 1 calendar year 2014 reporting cycle, RPU opened the PV incentive program in June, 2013 for the fiscal year 2013/14 funding cycle. RPU offered

rebate levels at $2.00 per AC watt installed up to 50% of project costs and capped at $13,000 for residential and $2.00 per AC watt installed up to 50% of project

costs and capped at $15,000, $45,000, $100,000 for flat rate, demand rate and TOU rate commercial customers respectively. Both the residential and the

commercial programs were fully subscribed the same day the program opened.

In June, 2014, RPU opened the PV Incentive program for the fiscal year 2014/15 funding cycle offering rebate levels at $0.75 per AC watt installed up to 50% of

project costs with no cap on residential and capped at $50,000 for all commercial installations. Both the residential and the commercial programs were fully

subscribed within 145 days.

During the reporting period program demand has exceeded available funding. The customer response to the program indicates the demand for solar is continuing

to increase. Reductions in PV system hardware and installation costs as well as alternative financing sources, such as the HERO (PACE) program, have expanded

customer participation and increased affordability for installing PV systems.

RPU is experiencing a significant increase in customers installing PV systems without the assistance of a utility rebate incentive. In 2014, an additional one hundred

sixty-seven (167) residential homes installed PV systems within RPU's service territory without requesting a reservation nor submitting an application for a PV

rebate.

RPU continues to market its PV rebate program through direct customer contact, special events, print ads, contractor communication and electronic media.

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 447 439 8PBI 0 0 0

Total 447 439 8






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total Generation

(kWh/yr)Incentives Paid for Reporting Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate 2,265.01 4,960,371.90 $527,357.00

-$ -$

843.54 1,847,352.60 $252,385.00

Non-Profit -$ -$

Government 447.21 979,389.90 $0.00

-$

-$

-$

Total (of all sectors) 3,555.76 7,787,114.40 $779,742.00

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds Remaining kW/MW Goal (Life of Program)

$1,841,691.50 $24,930,000.00 $9,748,891.63 N/A

-$



Category Type

Mixed-Use

Agricultural

$2,648,287.50

Total Expenditures Incentives Reserved

435

-$

-$

-$

-$


Commercial

Industrial

11

-$

Total Systems

Installed

3


None.

www.greenriverside.com

www.greenriverside.com/residential

www.greenriverside.com/business



The City of Riverside inspects every installed system and audits all commercial facilities and residential homes during the rebate application process, except new

construction with required Title 24 reports and public agencies not subject to City of Riverside review.


RPU provides PV project support and assistance to all contractors and customers who request help with technical support, rebate application processing and

permitting issues. RPU has also created strong relationships with local and regional installers and contractors.


RPU had 8 solar PV rebate reservations cancel during the reporting year at the customer's request.

Program Performance

$0.00

421

-$


Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 439 436 3PBI 2 1 1

Total 441 437 4





Installed

Capacity (kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid (Reporting


Residential - Market Rate 1,438 2,457,358 635,861$

29 12,195 58,741$

Non-Profit

Government

1,467 2,469,553

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)

kW/MW Goal (Life

of Program)

694,602$ 11,159,445$ 3,213,555$ no goal for RE


none

none

RE performs M&V on all installed systems prior to payment of rebate

http://www.roseville.ca.us/electric/home/rebates

1


Category Type

757,602$

436

437

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Renee Laffey

[email protected]




917,000$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors) 694,602$



Utility Name: Roseville Electric




Agricultural

Rebates for retrofit and new construction PV (EPBI and PBI)

Future Opportunities and Challenges:RE will reduce PV incentives to $0.00 by 12/31/16

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Utility Name: Sacramento Municipal Utility District



Program Activities

Jim Barnett

[email protected]

Summary of Program Activities:SMUD continued administering the SB1 solar PV incentive program for residential, commercial, new homes through the SolarSmart program, SolarShares and multi-family affordable housing through a pilot

virtual net metering program. Program efforts focused on:

• Educating customers with information and informational material via the SMUD website, through one-on-one communications with customers and by participating in workshops, conferences, webinars, etc.

• Managing incentive application intake and approval communications through the PowerClerk Incentive platform.

• Performing interconnection reviews and inspections for 100% of the projects installed.

• Administering EPBI payments and monthly or quarterly PBI payment disbursements through the PowerClerk Incentive platform and SAP.

• Pursuing process improvements to increase program management and administration efficiency and effectiveness which includes program communications, stakeholder collaboration, business planning,

reporting, and exchange of data between IT systems and solutions.

Program Highlights:

• Commercial Retrofit

• Continued thru the reporting period offering Step 10 ($0.20/watt EPBI)

• Customer interest in PV remains high but SMUD’s low rates contributed to lower than expected project completions

• PBI payments continue to run higher than initially anticipated. Systems are generating more than they would using 30-year average weather data.

• A pilot rate was developed that allows multiple account aggregation to be offset by a single PV installation. Mutual Housing was the 1st customer under this pilot that applied with three of their

multifamily projects.

• Total installed capacity for SB1 commercial 2007-2014 was 38.3MW with $89.5M in reserved PBI payments or paid incentives. Unbuilt reservations expected to be installed in 2015 and 2016 will add 29.4

MW with $5.7M reserved.

• Residential Retrofit

• Thru December 2014 – incentive remained at Step 10

• Total installed capacity for SB1 residential 2007-2014 was 21.6MW with $16.2M in reserved or paid incentives. Unbuilt projects expected to be installed in 2015 and 2016 based on current run-rates will

add an additional 29 MW with $3M in spending.

• Strategies were developed to maximize installed capacity and minimize financial costs in 2014.

• Low-income multifamily virtual net-metering.

• There were no uptakers for this program in 2014. Since we are coming close to reaching our financial limits in other programs, we closed the pilot rate.

• Total installed capacity for SB1 MF VNM 2007-2014 was 0.6MW with approximately $1.5M in paid incentives.

• SolarSmart New residential

• 2014 activity closed the SolarSmart Program. The SmartHome Program rolled out in 2015. All residential solar PV installations will apply thru the Residential PV Program. SmartHome features will include

PV options but reaches wider into smart home technologies, demand response, lighting, controls, EV connections and efficiency upgrades.

• Total installed capacity for SB1 SolarSmart 2007-2014 was 5.1MW with approximately $11.1M in paid incentives.

• SolarShares Program

• No new SolarShares projects have come online. Future growth is planned but will not be expensed against SB1 incentives

• Total installed capacity for SB1 SolarShares 2007-2014 was 1.1MW with approximately $1.6M in reserved incentives.

• SMUD expects to be very close to deliver the target capacity goal within the financial limit by the end of 2016 or sooner. Installed 2007-2014 66.7MW $119.9M; 2015-2016 forecast installations 58.4MW,

$8.7M

Future Opportunities and Challenges:• Reduced incentive levels had little impact on the growth rate of project activity in the residential retrofit market. Project activity has noticeably decreased in the commercial retrofit market since the

incentives dropped to Step 10 ($0.20 per Watt). However at the time of this writing, SMUD reached the commercial incentive limits by May 2015.

• The new housing market in the Sacramento region exhibited upward momentum in new housing starts in 2014, but reduced incentives levels reduced the builders interest to install solar PV.

• The solar leasing business model continues to capture a prominent share of the market for financing residential solar PV systems. While the majority of the observed growth in solar leasing is in the

residential retrofit market the solar leasing business model has made significant inroads into the new residential construction market. The concern is regarding the apparent tendency for the solar lease sector

of the PV market to distort the true cost of installation due to solar leasing service providers “optimization” of the federal investment tax credits. The benefit to the customer is a set monthly payment that on

an annual basis provides net utility bill savings, compared to a variable payment based on actual production, such as in a power purchase agreement, that produces net annual savings that are difficult to

determine. It is anticipated that solar leasing will continue to dominate the residential retrofit solar PV market. Solar leasing is also being increasingly adopted in the new residential construction market as

home builders look for ways to remain competitive. Solar leasing allows the home builders to exclude the cost of the solar PV system from the total cost of the new home thereby keeping these new solar

homes price competitive. When the new solar home is purchased, the solar lease is assigned to the new home owner becoming their responsibility to manage.

• PV system installation costs continue to decline. The solar PV market is moving closer to achieving the goal of maturing into a subsidy free PV marketplace, especially for high energy use residential

customers. For commercial customers, SMUD’s low electricity tariff rates coupled with risk adverse financing options seem to be holding back a more widespread penetration of solar PV into the commercial

market, especially for small and medium sized business. Another factor is that most small and medium size business are predominantly tenants in buildings that they do not own nor control, thereby making

the installation of a solar PV system a difficult proposition.

• Strategies continue to be explored to reduce time and costs for PV project permitting and grid interconnection approval, including the coordination of related activities with building department and

permitting officials.

• Customer education and awareness will continue to play a large part of SMUD’s role in the solar PV marketplace. The development and implementation of SMUD’s Solar Map and other web based customer

self-service tools is a continuing priority. Efforts will include developing and implementing enhancements to SMUD’s website to provide a superior online information resource for customers who have an

interest in pursuing and implanting solar PV.

• Residential Time-of-use rates were introduced in 2015. Phasing out the tiered rate structure into a TOU structure will impact the NEM financial benefits of installing PV, some customers positively, some

negatively. Residential TOU rates will be optional for PV and EV customers in 2016 and 2017. The tiered rate structure will be eliminated in 2017 with flat winter and summer rates. TOU will be the default in

2018. Customers are being educated to consider their long term investment in solar with TOU rates in mind.

• SMUD will move to the PowerClerk Interconnect platform in Q3 2015 in an attempt to reduce administration efforts and costs for all DG on our grid.

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 2398 1824 112PBI 0 0 0

Total 2398 1824 112





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations


1223.649 1848757 249464

Non-Profit 93.016 141294 15593

Government 618.486 877084 19070

349.999 531598 47067

Total (of all sectors) 10299.15 14698733 2947194

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


15565553 130000000 6979636 125


23

Category Type

Program Performance

2112808

1966

2009

Total Systems

Installed


Mixed-Use

2

4

123020364

Agricultural

14

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Industrial


Solar information on smud.org website:https://www.smud.org/en/residential/environment/solar-for-your-home/

https://www.smud.org/en/business/environment/solar-for-your-business/index.htm

https://smud.powerclerk.com/Default.aspx

https://www.smud.org/en/business/environment/solar-for-your-business/solarshares.htm

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/environment/renewable-energy/community-solar.htm

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/environment/renewable-energy/solar-project-dev-info.htm

https://www.smud.org/en/residential/environment/smart-homes/index.htm

Non PV solar systems installed: NONE

Known customer application issues/applications not approved:• Installation issues continue with residential retrofit installs due to employee churn within the solar companies and new contractors entering the Sacramento market. One notable issue continues being the

lack of installing a neutral wire from the PV production meter to the breaker panel. PV production meter placement also continues to be a contractor challenge despite drawing, discussions, marks on wall, etc.

Large turnover in installation staff seems to be the norm and educating installers continues to be challenging.

• Increased application intake continues to tax our staff resources. SMUD continues to strive for a 5-day application approval turn-around.

• SMUD is beginning to receive many applications where PV systems expected generation is greater than the customers historic kWh use. These applications are now simply being denied and making the

applicant reapply from scratch. We use to make it easier on the applicant by editing and manipulating the existing application in PowerClerk. This additional effort taxes SMUD's resources and enables the

contractor to stay stuck in their bad behavior. Most oversized applications are 20-year PPA agreements between the customer/solar company. The solar companies seem to have little interest in doing what is

right for the customer but would rather increase per system capacity to increase their revenue streams. SMUD increases their effort to instruct the customers that net-producers will receive wholesale credits

rather than retail rates for their excess generation.

Any training or builder/installer assistance:• SMUD held one 3 day training session in 2014 to prepare participants for the NABCEP certification test. The class was taught by Bill Brooks from Brooks Engineering. This is an advanced solar PV training class

for code compliance design and installation of solar PV systems.

• SMUD continues ongoing training and programs that support benchmarking with the EPA's Portfolio Manager tool.

• SMUD solar PV system inspectors provide continuous guidance, advice and instructions to solar vendors/installers operating within the SMUD service territory as part of the solar PV system installation

inspections, as well as solar system plan reviews.

• The SMUD website provides customer access to PV information and financing to help customers during the decision making process to invest in solar. Contractors also use the site for program documents

and updates.

• SMUD hosted 2nd annual Energy Expo in 2014. Contractor representatives and SMUD classes about solar and energy efficiency were held throughout the day. More than 200 people attended.

• Increased training for residential customers is being performed in 2015. SMUD will also roll-out TV, print ad, and web enhancement campaign in August 2015 to reach a broader audience. We have analyzed

many customer contracts who have entered into PPA agreements and found the majority are financially negative for our customers.

Any auditing of installed systems:• As a routine part of SMUD solar PV program, we perform post installation inspections of every solar PV system that operates parallel with our electric grid.

• PV Check (part of the Clean Power Research tools) allows system-wide performance monitoring to identify underperforming systems.

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI N/A N/A N/APBI N/A N/A N/A

Total


Existing Buildings N/A

New Construction Tier I N/ANew Construction Tier II N/A


Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year

Installations

Residential - Market Rate 1712 2,249,568 1,075,000$

147 193,158 392,000$

408 536,112 134,000$

Non-Profit 538 706,932 453,000$

Government 194 254,916 1,646,025$

0 - -$

0 - -$

0 - -$

Total (of all sectors) 2,999 3,940,686

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

2,054,000$ 27,514,838$ $3,051,663 N/A



Utility Name: San Francisco Public Utilities Comm

Program Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2014



Agricultural

11

The SFPUC directly installs, maintains and operates solar PV systems on

municipal buildings throughout the City and County of San Francisco.

The SFPUC's GoSolarSF program provides incentives to residents,

businesses, and non-profit organizations to install solar PV systems on

their premises.


Total Expenditures

0

0

On-the-job training (OJT) program provided participating

installation companies 50% of the wages (up to $6,000)

paid to GoSolarSF Workforce Development Program hires

during the training period.

None


Category Type

573

61

Total Systems

Installed



Program Activities

Program Performance

James Hendry

[email protected]


Yes. For municipal projects, SFPUC conducts full inspection and

commissioning. For GoSolarSF projects, SFPUC conducts an inspections

on a case-by-case basis following CSI guidelines.

GoSolarSF Website

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=133

29


3,940,686$

0

676

Known customer application issues/applications not approved: New budget amount for 2015-16 is projected to

be $5 million.

3,700,025$

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

2

$3,051,663

Industrial

Mixed-Use

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 1 2 0PBI

Total 1 2 0






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 5.514 8521 $9,750.00

Non-Profit

Government 26 37432 $92,000.00

31.514 45953 $101,750.00

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


$101,750.00 $2,510,000.00 $2,085,559.41 2,240 kW



Utility Name: City of Shasta Lake




Agricultural

Only one (1) new application was received during CY2014, as a result of

the City's decision to close the Solar Rebate Program until further notice

due to a lack of funding. Two (2) solar PV systems were installed in the

City's service territory and rebated under the PV Buydown Program during

CY2014 (compared to 10 systems during CY2013).

Future Opportunities and Challenges: The State of California's relentless attack on its load serving entities and

distribution providers is making the consumption of electrical energy

unaffordable. The City and its patrons cannot afford to invest in energy

efficiency and weatherization, renewable energy, roof top solar energy,

carbon free energy, and absorb the increasing cost to regulate all of these

endeavors while maintaining a reliably smart electrical energy grid.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial



1

Known customer application issues/applications not approved: During 2014, the City installed a 26

kW DC roof-top solar array on a

new City warehouse. The project

used public benefit funds (i.e. funds

for solar rebates) to fund the entire

project. The City's patrons benefit

from the utility project.

$0.00

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Tom Miller

[email protected]


none

none



verify that system performance matches the EPBB inputs.

http://www.ci.shasta-lake.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=874


Category Type

$101,750.00

1

2

Total Systems

Installed

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 114 114 0PBI 5 5 1

Total 119 119 1






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 176 274,292 444,868.85$

552 920589 131,464.70$

Non-Profit 4 155800 224,500.00$

Government

732 1350681 800,833.55$

Total Incentives


for Installations)


Funds

Remaining (Life of

Program)


4,330,550.55$ 31,500,000.00$ 14,112,690.00$ 30 MW



Utility Name: Silicon Valley Power, City of Santa Clara

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014



Agricultural

3

We received applications for two new construction residential projects this year

which is a very new space for us. Systems will be installed during 2015, but the

two projects combined amounted to essentially the typical # of solar systems

that we usually receive in one year.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Looking ahead and planning for changes post SB1, plus dealing with projects

that are coming in from PPA providers that are proposing non-optimally

orientated systems in order to squeeze every last possible kWh of production

out of a customer's rooftop.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives Reserved

Commercial



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: Some projects

needed to be redesigned before incentive approval. We have seen an uptick in non-

optimally orientated systems from some installers offering PPA contracts to

residential customers. We've severely reduced rebate incentives in some cases and

outright denied rebates to systems with North facing panels

22,620,350.00$

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

Leslie Brown

[email protected]


No non-PV solar systems installed that we are aware of

We did not sponsor or offer any specific builder or installer

training this year, however staff is on hand to assist in any part

of the installation process if there are issue and/or questions

We have a staff member who maintains HERS Solar certification who inspects

approximately 90% of the installations in our service territory

www.siliconvalleypower.com

5


Category Type

44,426.99$

40

48

Total Systems Installed

Paul Hauser/Kellie Haigh

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI

Total






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)


Non-Profit

Government

2 4729 0

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


0 212,957 57,043 400kW



Utility Name: Trinity Public Utilities District




Agricultural


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial




0

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)


Program Activities

Program Performance

phauser/[email protected]


None

No

None


Category Type

0

1

1

Total Systems

Installed

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 37 34 3PBI 0 0 0

Total 37 34 3






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 112.1 152 201,977

28.6 42 64,237

Non-Profit

Government

12.4 18.4 27,400

153.1 212.4 293,614

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


293,614 1,773,408 494,655 1,143 kW


None

No

Yes

Yes

5


Category Type

334,012.87

27

34

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Kathy Neus

[email protected]



Known customer application issues/applications not approved: No known issues

None

Industrial

Mixed-Use

2

TOTAL (all sectors)



Utility Name: Truckee Donner Public Utility District




Agricultural

Website, Conservation Information, Truckee Home Show, Solar installer

flyers and classes

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Predominately a second home area, customers still not wanting to part

with their cash reserves

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 298 298 Not Tracked

PBI 9 9 Not Tracked

Total 307 307 Not Tracked

Number of Installations per Building TypeExisting Buildings 297

New Construction Tier I 10



Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 1947.2 3,150,655 1,730,565$

15.6 25,361 17,941$

70.1 120,366 24,384$


2239.5 4,152,685 778,439$

770.7 1,265,336 269,738$

5043 8,714,403 2,821,067$

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life

of Program)


3,419,579$ 23,597,416$ 3,156,801$ 23



Utility Name: Turlock Irrigation District Contact Person: Nancy FollyEmail Address: [email protected]

Commercial 11

Program Activities

Summary of Program Activities: Assist customers that interested in installing solarFuture Opportunities and Challenges: In 2014, TID reached our NET metering cap. TID will need to ensuring

customers and vendors understand the differences between the traditional net metering rate schedules and

TID's new self generation rate schedules.

Program Performance



Installed

282

Residential - Affordable/ Low Income 5

Industrial 4

Agricultural 5

Mixed-Use


Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Any training or builder/installer assistance: Inspection training provided in July 2014.Any auditing of installed systems: Field post inspections are completed on 100% of systemsSolar program information on website at: http://www.tid.com/for-home/rebates/solar-rebate-program

3,029$ 4,675,178$

Additional Information (as available)Known customer application issues/applications not approved:Non PV solar systems installed:

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 10 7 3PBI

Total 10 7 3






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)


Installations)

Residential - Market Rate 21.77 37936 $23,335.32

25.039 41992 $28,044.00

Non-Profit

Government

46.809 79928 $51,379.32

Total Incentives

Paid (Reporting



Funds

Remaining (Life of

Program)


$51,379.32 $1,530,000.00 $1,274,507.32 N/A


none

none



verify that system performance matches the EPBB inputs.

http://www.cityofukiah.com/electric-utility/

2


Category Type

$51,379.32

5

7

Total Systems

Installed


Program Activities

Program Performance

Mark Gosvener

[email protected]




$0.00

Industrial

Mixed-Use

TOTAL (all sectors)



Utility Name: City of Ukiah




Agricultural

Ten (10) new applications were received and approved during CY2014.

Seven (7) solar PV system were installed in the City's service territory and

rebated under the PV Buy Down Program during CY2014 (compared to 2

systems in CY2013). Three (3) customers did not finalize their approved

rebates.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Solar PV Program activity increased during CY2014 as a result of some

focused marketing efforts of contractors in our service territory. There

continues to be an increase in interest in the program from customer

and contractor inquiries.

Total Expenditures


(Non-Incentives)

Incentives

Reserved

Commercial

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Number of


Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI

PBI 1 1

Total 1 1






Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations


Non-Profit

Government

357 112,240 $69,014

Total (of all sectors) 357 112,240 $69,014

Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting

Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

34,807.50$ 16,352,634.00$ 16,208,431


None

None

Systems are Pre/Post inspected by VG& E engineering and building

departments.

cityofvernon.org/dept/gas&electric/custsvc/solar


Category Type


Program Activities

Program Performance

Abraham Alemu

[email protected]

-$

1

Total Systems

Installed




661,342.50$



Utility Name: City of Vernon

Program Reporting Period: January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014



Agricultural

The City of Vernon installed a 357 AC KW system for an industrial

printing facility

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Have interest in installing a 350 KW system in 2015


Reserved

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed-Use

1

Contact Person:

Email Address:

Total

Numb

er of

Apps

Rcvd Apps Approved

Apps

Rejected/

Cancelled

EPBI 0 0 0PBI 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0





Installed Capacity

(kW)

Total

Generation

(kWh/yr)

Incentives Paid

for Reporting

Year Installations

Residential - Market Rate n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

0 0 0

Non-Profit 0 0 0

Government 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0


Total Incentives

Paid/Reporting Year

SB 1 Funding

(Life of Program)

Funds

Remaining

kW/MW Goal

(Life of Program)

0 $92,000 $92,000 159 kW

None

0





Agricultural

0

Commercial

Industrial 0

0

0


Reserved

Mixed-Use

0

0

0


Program Activities

Program Performance

Jenele Davidson

[email protected]

Utility Name: Victorville Municipal Utility Services

Very few inquiries and no applications were received regarding the

City's SB1 solar rebate program during calendar year 2014.

Future Opportunities and Challenges: Victorville Municipal Utility Services (VMUS) serves 54 customers, all

which are classified as either industrial, commercial or government

(no residential). Total available program funding is $92,000. In June

2014, the EPBI and PBI incentive rates were restored to 2008 levels

for the remaining life of the program ($2.80/watt and $0.10/kWh

respectively) and the per-customer spending cap of $15,000 was

eliminated in an attempt to improve participation. VMUS will

continue to solicit interest from its customers.

January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014


n/a

Total Systems

Installed


n/a



None

No

n/a

http://VMUS.victorvilleca.gov

0


Category Type

Program Reporting Period:

Documents

California Public Power SB1 Solar Program Calendar Year ... · California Public Power SB1 Solar Program Status Report January through December 2014 Reporting Period July 1, 2015