|
LIPA extends PV rebate at higher rate than expected
With the dedication of a 1 MW PowerLight Corp. PV system partially funded by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) on May 28, the regional New York State electric utility has also announced an extension to its Solar Pioneer rebate program.
 |
|
|
 |
©
PowerLight Corporation |
|
Roofers: PowerLight's David Eisenbud (left) and Tom Leyden show off the 612 kW portion of a $6.1 million 1 MW Long Island installation. |
|
|
Plans call for a second 1 MW block to be offered at $4.50 per watt for systems up to 10 kW once the current 1 MW block (at $5 per watt), first made available in August 2002, is used up, most likely by the end of the year. As of mid-June, 631 kW had been pre-approved. According to a spokesman, who asked that his name not be used, LIPA had been planning to reduce the buydown to $4. But in response to protests from the PV industry, LIPA decided to insert
»a transition point« of $4.50, which he expects will last till about the end of 2004, when the rebate will drop to $4 per watt. It is still unclear, he says, what size block will be offered at that rate.
The extension to the PV program is part of an additional $5 million LIPA is putting into its Clean Energy Initiative annually for five years, bringing the total of the renewables program budget to $185 million. The spokesman could not say how much of the funding would be used for PV.
Ironically, probably none of this will benefit PowerLight, since it concentrates on large installations. LIPA put up $4.1 million of the money for the $6.1 million installation to evaluate the effectiveness of photovoltaics as a resource to meet Long Island's growing demand for electricity, which - according to a company press release - is increasing at nearly twice the statewide average. The system, which uses Shell Solar modules, was installed by PowerLight on three buildings belonging to the Fala Direct DM Group, a direct mail communications company. Originally, it was intended to have an installed capacity of 1.5 MW (see PI 5/2001, p. 22), but the size was reduced when LIPA determined the roof was not large enough, says the
spokesman.
|
|
