Earlier this spring, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
released its 2018
Community Power State Scorecard, revealing the the best and worst states
for local clean energy across the country.
Did many states improve on their 2017 score?
The latest rankings used a very similar methodology to last
year’s interactive Community
Power Map, notably increasing the points awarded for a state’s community or
sharable renewable program and adding (or subtracting) points for the ease (or
difficulty) of connecting to the grid under the state’s rules.
To better understand how this landscape has changed from one
year to the next, we took a closer look at the past two years of Community
Power scorecard results, finding that states fall into three categories:
consistent leaders, most improved, and room for improvement.
Consistent Leaders
In both 2017 and 2018, five states were consistently ranked
at the top of the pack for having policies amenable to community
power: Massachusetts, New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. Policies
in these states that range from net metering and
simplified interconnection to
encourage distributed energy resources like solar, to programs that
support shared/community
renewable energy or that allow communities to provide financing to
commercial properties with property
assessed clean energy (or PACE) programs.
A recent analysis of the
state of distributed solar across the U.S. reveals the positive impact
these states’ policies can have on small scale, distributed power generation:
New York, Mass., and New Jersey, all claim the top spots for the amount of
their solar energy coming from distributed sources.
Community Power Scores for the Top Five States:
State
|
2018
|
2017
|
Change from 2018-2017
|
Massachusetts
|
30
|
26
|
+ 4
|
New York
|
29
|
24
|
+ 5
|
California
|
27
|
24
|
+ 3
|
Illinois
|
26
|
22
|
+ 4
|
New Jersey
|
25
|
24
|
+ 1
|
Most Improved
Fortunately, the handful of leading states were not the only
ones to see both improvements in their scores and strengthened support for
community power, particularly as important policies including shared renewable
energy and community solar programs took hold in other parts of the country.
Overall, scores improved in 26 states and the District of
Columbia. In Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital saw the largest overall
bump in its score by seven raw points, attributable
to the city’s unique Affordable Solar and newly launched community solar
programs. Following D.C., Virginia and Hawaii also improved
substantially by five points, thanks to new community solar programs. North
Carolina, which also improved in the latest rankings, benefitted from
improvements in the state’s interconnection
rules and an extension
of PACE programs. Time will tell whether these and other states’ scores
continue to improve.
Room for Improvement
Scores either stayed the same or dipped in a total of 24
states, indicating places where policies to support local community power have
stalled, perhaps given existing biases to utility-scale electricity generation,
or where policies enabling smaller, distributed systems are even under
attack.
In particular, several states have consistently found
themselves near
the bottom of the ranking, as the table below demonstrates.
Community Power Scores for the Bottom Five States:
State
|
2018
|
2017
|
Change from 2018-2017
|
Tennessee
|
1
|
3
|
– 2
|
Alabama
|
2
|
4
|
– 2
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Nebraska
|
4
|
6
|
– 2
|
Idaho
|
5
|
7
|
– 2
|
While many of these states’ distributed solar markets remain
underdeveloped due to poor policy support, in some states such as Idaho or
Texas, policies appear to have more readily enabled
utility-scale renewable generation than smaller, distributed solar.
It is important to note that some states that saw reductions
in their total scores in 2018 may be places less amenable to grid
interconnection, as such states were docked points in the latest scorecard,
drawing on data from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council’s Freeing the Grid report that were
incorporated into this year’s methodology.
Yet, a sizable number of states still have plenty of room
for improvement, when it comes to supporting policies that enable local,
community energy deployment.
Comparison By State, Ranked by Changes in Score:
State
|
Raw Score*
|
Point Change
|
|
2017
|
2018
|
||
District of Columbia
|
15
|
22
|
+ 7
|
Virginia
|
10
|
15
|
+ 5
|
Hawaii
|
14
|
19
|
+ 5
|
North Carolina
|
16
|
21
|
+ 5
|
Oregon
|
19
|
24
|
+ 5
|
New York
|
24
|
29
|
+ 5
|
Colorado
|
17
|
21
|
+ 4
|
Illinois
|
22
|
26
|
+ 4
|
Massachusetts
|
26
|
30
|
+ 4
|
Maine
|
9
|
12
|
+ 3
|
Maryland
|
15
|
18
|
+ 3
|
Minnesota
|
15
|
18
|
+ 3
|
New Hampshire
|
15
|
18
|
+ 3
|
Vermont
|
18
|
21
|
+ 3
|
Rhode Island
|
19
|
22
|
+ 3
|
California
|
24
|
27
|
+ 3
|
Utah
|
10
|
12
|
+ 2
|
South Carolina
|
11
|
13
|
+ 2
|
New Mexico
|
14
|
16
|
+ 2
|
Ohio
|
21
|
23
|
+ 2
|
Indiana
|
6
|
7
|
+ 1
|
Iowa
|
6
|
7
|
+ 1
|
Mississippi
|
6
|
7
|
+ 1
|
West Virginia
|
7
|
8
|
+ 1
|
Delaware
|
12
|
13
|
+ 1
|
Washington
|
15
|
16
|
+ 1
|
New Jersey
|
24
|
25
|
+ 1
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Montana
|
6
|
6
|
0
|
Michigan
|
14
|
14
|
0
|
Connecticut
|
15
|
15
|
0
|
Texas
|
6
|
5
|
– 1
|
Kentucky
|
9
|
8
|
– 1
|
Wisconsin
|
9
|
8
|
– 1
|
Florida
|
11
|
10
|
– 1
|
Pennsylvania
|
14
|
13
|
– 1
|
Nevada
|
17
|
16
|
– 1
|
Tennessee
|
3
|
1
|
– 2
|
Alabama
|
4
|
2
|
– 2
|
Nebraska
|
6
|
4
|
– 2
|
Idaho
|
7
|
5
|
– 2
|
Alaska
|
8
|
6
|
– 2
|
Kansas
|
8
|
6
|
– 2
|
North Dakota
|
8
|
6
|
– 2
|
Louisiana
|
9
|
7
|
– 2
|
Oklahoma
|
9
|
7
|
– 2
|
Arkansas
|
10
|
8
|
– 2
|
Georgia
|
11
|
9
|
– 2
|
Wyoming
|
11
|
9
|
– 2
|
Arizona
|
13
|
11
|
– 2
|
Missouri
|
16
|
14
|
– 2
|
*Note: Our 2017 Scorecard relied on a total of 33
possible points, while 2018 allowed for a total of 36 points, where new
criteria and scores were added for interconnection (that is, states gained or
lost additional points depending on their grid rules) and shared renewable
policies.
|
What This Scorecard Comparison Tells Us
While year-to-year rankings reveal a lot of important
information on their own, digging into how scores have changed from one year to
the next paints an even more dynamic picture of where states are headed, when
it comes to helping or hindering local energy action.
As such, we’ll be tracking this Community Power Scorecard in
future years, updating these comparisons to assess trends and reveal which
states are clearly on the right track when it comes to policies that enable
local, community power—and which states need to improve.
For an interactive map to explore state-by-state policies
and other conditions that support local power, be sure to take a closer look at
ILSR’s Community Power Map.
No comments:
Post a Comment