expand its renewable energy market. Like North
Carolina, the state began with a voluntary green
power-pricing program, whereby power generated by eligible, grid-connected renewable energy systems is sold to other customers. An initial
aggregate cap of 500 kilowatts on the utility
buyback limited interest, however. Since 2009,
state regulators have increased the cap to 6. 4
megawatts and added a premium solar offering
to the green pricing program. In March HB146,
which would have increased the aggregate $2.5
million cap on the 35 percent corporate tax
incentive for installed non-residential renewable energy systems to $10 million, died in the
Georgia House. But advocates hope to add the
provision to a tax-relief bill being considered in
the state Senate.
In North Carolina, the voluntary NC
GreenPower pricing program opened the
door to renewable energy. Created in 2003, the
independent nonprofit program provided the
state’s first incentives for residential installations
and prompted net-metering and interconnection
rules. More importantly, it countered misunder-
standings about renewable energy, particularly
solar energy, says NCSEA Executive Director
Ivan Urlaub. “You can’t ‘unknow’ something
once you know it,” Urlaub explains. “And what
we came to know was that solar power works just
fine, has virtually no problems, it integrates into
the grid very well, and you can build it quickly.
And it creates a lot of jobs.”
Advocates from the agriculture, economic
development and renewable energy sectors lob-
bied for an REPS, but legislators were dubious
about renewable energy’s cost and local poten-
tial. So, at the request of the state legislature, the
state utilities commission conducted a study. The
2006 study found that the state electric utilities
could tap renewable energy and efficiency to pro-
vide 10 percent of their generation ( 7. 5 percent
renewable energy and 2. 5 percent efficiency) at
less cost than traditional sources — less than a
mix including new nuclear generation, and half
a billion dollars less than coal- and natural gas-
fired generation alone.
“The policy proposal became viable and the
utilities were not able to oppose it any longer on
a cost basis, so they had to deal,” says Urlaub.
The utilities, Duke Energy and Progress Energy,
wanted to be able to recover construction costs
for coal and nuclear plants during construction,
and a compromise was struck. More than 90
stakeholders participated in bill negotiation. The
resulting REPS increased efficiency to 5 percent,
requiring IOUs to provide a total 12. 5 percent of
their retail electricity from renewables and effi-
ciency. It also included solar water heating with
photovoltaics in the solar set-aside and made
combined heat and power eligible. According to
Urlaub, “Those were two significant precedents
that were rare at the time nationwide.”
Utilities comply by procuring renewable
energy credits from generators who earn a tax
credit on the installation cost. Basing the REPS
on tax credits for generators, rather than a grant
or rebate, was important. “We tried for a number
of years to get a public benefits fund in North
Carolina without any success,” says Steve Kal-
land, director of the North Carolina Solar Cen-
ter. A tax credit was viewed as more consistent
with economic development. ➢
