新能源

赛迪：2020至2024年全球太阳能光伏发电市场展望（25页）.pdf

(二)2020 年地区市场发展预测本报告的“中等情景”表明，中国以及亚太地区的其他国家将继续主导全球太阳能光伏市场需求(见图 13)。一旦中国的太阳能光伏市场重组完成(原定于明年完成)，该国的发展也将.

2020-12-01 25页 5星级

【研报】电力设备及新能源行业风电板块2021年投资策略：从“含海量”视角寻找风电行业阿尔法-20201116（19页）.pdf

证券研究报告 请务必阅读正文之后的免责条款 从“含海量”视角寻找风电行业阿尔法 从“含海量”视角寻找风电行业阿尔法 电力设备及新能源行业风电板块 2021 年投资策略2020.11.16 中信证券研.

2020-11-16 19页 5星级

【研报】电气设备行业深度报告：风电迎来发展新阶段产业链龙头御风而上-20201027（35页）.pdf

电气设备电气设备 请务必参阅正文后面的信息披露和法律声明 1 / 35 电气设备电气设备 2020 年 10 月 27 日 投资评级：投资评级：看好看好（维持维持） 行业走势图行业走势图 数据来源：.

2020-10-28 35页 5星级

2022年印度风电展望报告- GWEC（英文版）（38页）.pdf

India Wind Outlook Towards 2022 Looking beyond headwinds Disclaimer Copyright May 2020 This document.

2020-09-18 38页 5星级

2020年风电技术市场报告 - Berkeley Lab（英文版）（87页）.pdf

ELECTRICITYMARKETS ERCOT: 19.9%; MISO: 8.5%; CAISO: 6.9%; PJM: 3.0%; ISO-NE: 2.9%; NYISO: 2.8% Texas3,938Texas28,871Iowa41.9%Kansas53.5% Iowa1,739Iowa10,201Kansas41.4%Iowa53.1% Illinois541Oklahoma8,173Oklahoma34.6%North Dakota51.1% South Dakota506Kansas6,128North Dakota26.8%Oklahoma45.3% Kansas475California5,942South Dakota23.9%New Mexico27.4% North Dakota473Illinois5,350Maine23.6%Nebraska24.7% Michigan286Minnesota3,843Nebraska19.9%Wyoming24.1% New Mexico221Colorado3,762New Mexico19.4%South Dakota23.8% Oregon201North Dakota3,628Colorado19.2%Texas20.6% Minnesota167Oregon3,423Minnesota19.0%Maine20.4% Nebraska160Washington3,085Texas17.5%Colorado19.4% California133Indiana2,317Vermont16.4%Minnesota17.0% Oklahoma100Michigan2,188Idaho16.1%Montana15.4% Pennsylvania90Nebraska2,132Oregon11.5%Oregon15.0% Colorado59New York1,987Wyoming9.8%Idaho11.2% New Hampshire29New Mexico1,953Montana8.5%Illinois10.1% Massachusetts10Wyoming1,589Illinois7.6%Washington8.6% Ohio9South Dakota1,525Washington7.3%Vermont7.1% Alaska1Pennsylvania1,459California6.8%Indiana6.4% Idaho973Indiana6.0%Hawaii6.3% Rest of U.S.0Rest of U.S.7,062Rest of U.S.1.1%Rest of U.S.1.6% Total9,137Total105,591Total7.2%Total8.0% Installed Capacity (MW)2019 Wind Generation as a Percentage of: Annual (2019)Cumulative (end of 2019)In-State GenerationIn-State Sales Source: AWEA WindIQ, EIA 13Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-energy-growthInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-energy-growth Online wind hybrid / co-located projects of various configurations 14 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Online Wind Hybrid / Co-located Projects Data on subset of the hybrid / co-located project configurations: end of 2019 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Note: Not included in figure are 54 other hybrid / co-located projects with other configurations; details on those projects are provided in the underlying data file. Storage ratio defined as total storage capacity divided by total generation capacity within a type. Duration defined as total MWh of storage divided by total MW of storage within a type. 15 Most wind hybrid / co-located projects are Wind Storage (located in PJM and ERCOT), with storage having limited duration to serve ancillary services markets There are far fewer other wind hybrid / co-located configurations of significant size # projectsTotal capacity (MW)Storage ratioDuration (hrs) WindPVFossilStorage PV Storage40881.6169.119%2.6 Wind Storage131,289.9183.614%0.6 Wind PV Storage2215.820.734.315%0.4 Fossil Storage102,413.691.04%0.9 Wind PV6535.3211.50.0n/an/a 05001000150020002500 Wind PV Fossil Storage Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projectsInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projects Generator storage hybrid / co-located projects at end of 2019: wind storage, PV storage, fossil storage Wind storage plants located primarily in ERCOT and PJM PV storage plants located primarily in non-ISO West, ERCOT, and Southeast Fossil storage plants located primarily in MISO and ISO-NE 16 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projectsInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projects Scope of transmission interconnection queue data Data compiled from interconnection queues for 7 ISOs and 30 utilities, representing 80% of all U.S. electricity load Projects that connect to the bulk power system Includes all projects in queues through the end of 2019 Filtered to include only “active” projects: removed those listed as “online,” “withdrawn,” or “suspended” Hybrid / co-located projects identified via either of these two methods: “Generator Type” field includes multiple types for a single queue entry (row) Two or more queue entries (of different gen. types) that share the same point of interconnection and sponsor, queue date, ID number, and/or COD Emphasis was placed on identification of wind storage and solar storage Other hybrid configurations are likely undercounted Note that being in an interconnection queue does not guarantee ultimate construction: majority of plants are not subsequently built 17 Generation capacity in 37 selected interconnection queues from 2014 to 2019, by resource type Note: Not all of this capacity will be built Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 18Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Wind power capacity within selected interconnection queues by region: cumulative total and 2019 additions Note: Not all of this capacity will be built Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 19Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Hybrid / co-located capacity within interconnection queues at end of 2019: 11 GW of wind proposed as hybrids, 102 GW of solar Notes: (1) Not all of this capacity will be built; (2) Hybrid plants involving multiple generator types (e.g., wind PV storage, wind PV) show up in all generator categories, presuming the capacity is known for each type. Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 20 Wind Storage and Solar Storage configurations are more common than other hybrid types1 1 Emphasis was placed on identification of wind storage and solar storage: other hybrid configurations are likely undercounted. Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Location of hybrid / co-located capacity within interconnection queues at end of 2019 Notes: (1) Not all of this capacity will be built; (2) Hybrid plants involving multiple generator types (e.g., wind PV storage, wind PV) show up in all generator categories, presuming the capacity is known for each type; (3) Emphasis was placed on identification of wind storage and solar storage in queues: other hybrid / co-located projects are likely undercounted. Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 21 As a proportion of proposed wind, solar, and natural gas in regional queues, proposed wind hybrids are more prevalent in CAISO; solar somewhat more evenly distributed WindSolarNat. Gas CAISO50g%0% ERCOT3%0% SPP1%0% MISO2%0% PJM0%1% NYISO1%5%4% ISO-NE6%0%0% West (non-ISO)6P%0% Southeast (non-ISO)0%6%0% TOTAL4.8.7%0.6% Percentage of Proposed Generators Hybridizing in Each RegionRegion Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Generator storage hybrid / co-located projects and standalone storage in interconnection queues Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 22 Note: Not all of this capacity will be built Average storage:generation capacity ratio for solar storage (66%) is higher than for wind storage (27%), in subset of ISO queues shown here: solar hybrids likely to install more storage capacity relative to generation capacity than wind hybrids Wind StorageSolar Storage CAISO25x% ERCOT548% SPP238% NYISO7I% Combined27f% Storage:Generation Capacity Ratio Region ELECTRICITYMARKETS see full report for the assumptions used to generate the figure. Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 28 Tracked wind equipment imports into the United States in 2019, by region Note: Tracked wind-specific equipment includes: wind-powered generating sets, towers, hubs and blades, wind generators and parts Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 29 Origins of U.S. imports of selected wind turbine equipment in 2019 Majority of imports of wind-powered generating sets come from Spain Generators and parts come from Europe and Asia Towers largely come from Asia, but also Canada Blades and hubs come from all four world regions Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 30 Approximate domestic content of major components in 2019 Figure reflects percentage of blades, towers, and nacelles that were installed in the U.S. in 2019 that were also manufactured / assembled domestically Imports occur in untracked trade categories not included below, including many nacelle internals; nacelle internals generally have lower domestic content of 5 MW are included. ELECTRICITYMARKETS as a result, prices do not reflect wind generation costs Also presented are Level10 Energy data on PPA offers; these are often for shorter contract durations, and levelization details are unclear Levelized cost of energy is calculated based on following assumptions Project-level CapEx and capacity factor data presented elsewhere in this deck Levelized OpEx declines from $83/kW-yr in 1998 to $43/kW-yr in 2019 (2019$); project life increases from 20 years in 1998 to 29.6 years in 2019 (from previous LBNL research) Weighted average cost of capital (WACC) based on 10% equity return over time; debt interest rate varies over time as shown earlier in deck; constant 65%/35% debt/equity ratio Combined income tax of 40% pre-2018 and 27% post-2017; 5-yr MACRS; no PTC; 2% inflation 61 Levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date and region (full sample) 62 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Generation-weighted average levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date: national and region averages 63 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Note: West = CAISO, West (non-ISO); Central = MISO, SPP, ERCOT; East = PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, Southeast (non-ISO) Levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date and region (recent sample) 64 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Level10 Energy wind PPA price indices Source: Level10 Energy 65 Levelized cost of wind energy by commercial operation date Note: Yearly estimates reflect variations in installed cost, capacity factors, operational costs, cost of financing, and project life; includes accelerated depreciation but exclude PTC. See full report for details. 66 Source: Berkeley Lab Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energyInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energy 947771617473859085857259484441393535 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Commercial Operation Year Average and Project-level LCOE (2019 $/MWh) 100 MW Levelized cost of wind energy by region, over last five years 67 Source: Berkeley Lab Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energyInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energy Note: Total sample presented here includes 34 GW of installed wind capacity, but regional sample is especially small in ISO-NE (569 MW), CAISO (319 MW, no data in 2019), and NYISO (156 MW, no data in 2019) 0 30 60 90 2015 2017 2019 National $35/MWh 2019 Avg = 2015 2017 2019 ERCOT $32/MWh 2015 2017 2019 SPP $33/MWh 2015 2017 2019 MISO $36/MWh 2015 2017 2019 West $37/MWh 2015 2017 2019 PJM $44/MWh 2015 2017 2019 ISO-NE $76/MWh 2015 2017 2019 CAISO no data 2015 2017 2019 NYISO no data Average LCOE (2019 $/MWh) Historical renewable energy certificate (REC) prices REC prices vary by: market type (compliance vs. voluntary); geographic region; specific design of state RPS policies. Source: Marex Spectron 68 ELECTRICITYMARKETS generalized flat block is 24x7 average price across all pricing nodes in region Estimates of wind power integration costs, by region and wind penetration level Note: Because methods vary and a consistent set of operational impacts has not been included in each study, results from the different analyses presented here are not fully comparable. Nonetheless, in general, the balancing costs included in the above graphic are often additional to the market value and value factor results presented in previous slides. 78 Sources: see data file for details Integrating wind energy into power systems is manageable, but not free of additional costs Miles of transmission projects completed, by year and voltage Source: FERC 79 New transmission build has been relatively modest in recent years ELECTRICITYMARKETS for projects installed from 2013 through 2017, confidential EIA Form 860 data were used extensively. Wind project O&M costs come primarily from two sources: EIA Form 412 data from 2001 to 2003 for private power projects and projects owned by publicly-owned utilities, and FERC Form 1 data for investor-owned utility projects. Power Sales Price and Levelized Cost Trends Wind power purchase agreement (PPA) price data come from multiple sources, including prices reported in FERCs Electronic Quarterly Reports, FERC Form 1, avoided-cost data filed by utilities, pre-offering research conducted by bond rating agencies, and a Berkeley Lab collection of PPAs. Additional data come from Level10 Energy ( The levelized cost of wind energy estimated based on assumptions described on a later slide. REC prices come from Marex Spectron ( Price and Value Comparisons Data on solar PPA prices are based on the same sources as wind prices. Gas price projections come from EIAs Annual Energy Outlook (https:/www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/). Details on the calculation of energy and capacity value are available in Wiser and Bolinger (2019): https:/emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/wtmr_final_for_posting_8-9-19.pdf. In brief, estimated hourly wind generation profiles are matched to hourly nodal real-time wholesale prices from ABBs Velocity database. The capacity value of each plant is estimated based on the modeled wind profiles and ISO-specific rules for winds capacity credit and ISO-zone-specific capacity prices. Integration cost estimates derive from a Berkeley Lab review of the available published literature: see data-file for the full list of citations. Data on completed transmission lines come from FERC Infrastructure reports (https:/www.ferc.gov/industries-data/resources/staff-reports-and-papers). Conclusions Independent analys

2020-09-18 87页 5星级

【研报】商业贸易行业深度报告：跨境电商专题东南亚蓝海千帆竞渡社交单页电商轻舟御风-20200908（34页）.pdf

商业贸易商业贸易 请务必参阅正文后面的信息披露和法律声明 1 / 34 商业贸易商业贸易 2020 年 09 月 08 日 投资评级：投资评级：看好看好（维持维持） 行业走势图行业走势图 数据来源：贝.

2020-09-09 34页 5星级

【研报】新能源行业：光伏关注需求复苏风电持续高景气-20200904（23页）.pdf

请务必阅读正文之后的信息披露和法律声明 Table_MainInfo 行业研究/机械工业/新能源板块 证券研究报告 行业专题报告行业专题报告 2020 年 09 月 04 日 Table_Inves.

2020-09-07 23页 5星级

【研报】2020风电行业中报总结：行业高景气招标常态化-20200906（30页）.pdf

请务必阅读正文之后的重要声明部分请务必阅读正文之后的重要声明部分 证券研究报告证券研究报告/ /行业深度报告行业深度报告 20202020 年年 0 09 9 月月 0 06 6 日日 电气设备 行.

2020-09-07 30页 5星级

【研报】风电行业：行业存在较大预期差详解四大关键问题-20200901（35页）.pdf

赵旭赵旭 S1090519120001 行业存在行业存在较较大预期差，详解四大大预期差，详解四大 关键问题关键问题 报告日期：报告日期：2020年年9月月1日日 游家训游家训 S10905150500.

2020-09-02 35页 5星级

全球离网太阳能协会(GOGLA)：2020年离网太阳能市场趋势报告（42页）.pdf

出版机构：2020年离网太阳能市场趋势报告 2020年3月免责声明本报告是世界银行集团(World Bank Group，简称WBG)点亮全球(Lighting Global)项目对全球离网太阳能(O.

2020-08-17 42页 5星级

【研报】风电产业链梳理专题报告之一：全球风电运营商和整机厂商市场格局变迁和主要企业介绍-20200210[25页].pdf

请务必阅读正文之后的免责条款部分 全球视野全球视野 本土智慧本土智慧 行业行业研究研究 Page 1 证券研究报告证券研究报告深度报告深度报告 风电风电 风电风电产业链梳理专题报告产业链梳理专题报告.

2020-08-01 25页 5星级

【研报】风电行业2020年投资策略：平价前的最后冲刺-20200102[30页].pdf

请务必阅读正文最后的中国银河证券股份公司免责声明 行业深度研究报告行业深度研究报告 电力设备及新能源行业电力设备及新能源行业 2020 年年 1 月月 2 日日 风电风电行业行业 2020 年投资策.

2020-08-01 30页 5星级

【研报】电气设备行业太阳能屋顶专题研究：太阳能屋顶光伏差异化竞争的未来特斯拉的能源战场-20200408[19页].pdf

-1- 证券研究报告 2020 年 04 月 08 日 电气设备电气设备行业行业 太阳能屋顶：光伏差异化竞争的未来，特斯拉的能源战场太阳能屋顶：光伏差异化竞争的未来，特斯拉的能源战场 太阳能屋顶专题.

2020-08-01 19页 5星级

【公司研究】爱旭股份-深度报告：专业太阳能电池龙头引领产业进步-20200517[22页].pdf

证券研究报告证券研究报告 爱旭股份爱旭股份(600732.(600732.SH)SH)深度深度报告报告 专业太阳能电池龙头专业太阳能电池龙头引领引领产业产业进步进步 2020.05.17 徐超（徐超.

2020-07-30 22页 5星级

中国核电：2020年企业社会责任报告（42页）.PDF

点击查看更多中国核电：2020年企业社会责任报告（42页）.PDF精彩内容。

2020-07-02 42页 5星级

中国核电：2020年环境、社会及公司治理（ESG）报告（26页）.PDF

点击查看更多中国核电：2020年环境、社会及公司治理（ESG）报告（26页）.PDF精彩内容。

2020-07-02 26页 5星级

NREL：2020年下半年太阳能产业更新报告（英文版）（72页）.pdf

2020年，美国光伏组件产量达到了创纪录的4.4 GW，增长24% /v，主要是由于第一太阳能的产能翻了一番。美国在2020年第四季度停止生产光伏电池，当年的产量为198兆瓦。PV InfoLink报.

2020-07-02 72页 5星级

中国核电：2019年企业社会责任报告（44页）.PDF

可靠性保证公司保证本报告内容不存在任何虚假记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏，并对其内容的真实性、准确性和完整性承担个别及连带责任。发布周期中国核能电力股份有限公司自2012年发布第一份报告以来持续公开发布社.

2019-12-02 44页 5星级

中国核电：2019年环境、社会及公司治理（ESG）报告（25页）.PDF

点击查看更多中国核电：2019年环境、社会及公司治理（ESG）报告（25页）.PDF精彩内容。

2019-12-02 25页 5星级

2019年太阳能可利用等级报告 -Berkeley Lab（英文版）（75页）.pdf

Empirical Trends in Project Technology, Cost, Performance, and PPA Pricing in the United States 2019 Edition Authors: Mark Bolinger, Joachim Seel, Dana Robson Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory December 2019 Table of ContentsTable of Contents List of AcronymsList of Acronyms . i i Executive SummaryExecutive Summary . ii ii 1. Introduction1. Introduction .5 5 2. Utility2. Utility- -Scale Photovoltaics (PV)Scale Photovoltaics (PV) . 1010 2.1 Installation and Technology Trends (690 projects, 24.6 GWAC) 11 Florida was the new national leader in utility-scale solar growth 11 Tracking c-Si projects continued to dominate 2018 additions 13 More projects at lower-insolation sites, fixed-tilt mounts crowded out of sunny areas 14 Developers continued to favor larger array capacity relative to inverter capacity 16 Utility-scale PV battery projects are becoming more common 17 2.2 Installed Project Prices (641 projects, 22.9 GWAC) 18 Median prices fell to $1.6/WAC ($1.2/WDC) in 2018 18 The price premium for tracking over fixed-tilt installations seemingly disappeared 20 Evidence of economies of scale among our 2018 sample 21 System prices vary by region 22 2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs (48 projects, 0.9 GWAC) 25 2.4 Capacity Factors (550 projects, 20.0 GWAC) 27 Wide range in capacity factors reflects differences in insolation, tracking, and ILR 27 Since 2013, competing drivers have reduced average capacity factors by project vintage 30 Performance degradation is evident, but is difficult to assess and attribute at the project level 31 2.5 Power Purchase Agreement Prices (290 contracts, 18.6 GWAC) and LCOE (640 projects, 22.9 GWAC) 34 PPA prices have fallen dramatically, in all regions of the country 36 An increasing number of PPAs (and projects in general) are including battery storage 39 The incremental PPA price adder for storage depends on the size of the battery 42 Despite record-low PPA prices, solar faces stiff competition from both wind and natural gas 44 Levelized PPA prices track the LCOE of utility-scale PV reasonably well 46 2.6 Wholesale Market Value 49 Solar curtailment is a function of market penetration and transmission constraints 49 In most regions of the United States, solar provides above-average market value 51 Reduced by the ITC, solar PPA prices are generally comparable to solars market value 54 3. Utility3. Utility- -Scale Concentrating SolarScale Concentrating Solar- -Thermal Power (CSP)Thermal Power (CSP) . 5757 3.1 Technology and Installation Trends Among the CSP Project Population (16 projects, 1.8 GWAC) 57 3.2 Installed Project Prices (7 projects, 1.4 GWAC) 58 3.3 Capacity Factors (13 projects, 1.7 GWAC) 60 3.4 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Prices (6 projects, 1.3 GWAC) 61 4. Conclusions and Future Outlook4. Conclusions and Future Outlook . 6363 ReferencesReferences . 6666 Data Sources 66 Literature Sources 67 AppendixAppendix . . 7070 Total Operational PV Population 70 Total Operational CSP Population 71 O with some limited exceptions (including Figure 1 and Chapter 4), the report does not discuss forecasts or seek to project future trends. The home page for this reportutilityscalesolar.lbl.gov houses an Excel workbook that provides all of the publicly available data for each of the reports figures, as well as a number of interactive data visualizations that enable one to explore the data in different ways. The Federal Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) The business energy investment tax credit, or ITC, in Section 48 of the U.S. tax code has been available to commercial solar projects for many years. Though originally a 10% credit, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 temporarily increased the size of the credit to 30% starting in 2006. In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the 30% credit through the end of 2016, and in December 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 extended it once again, through 2019. This most-recent extension brought several other changes as well. For commercial projects, the prior requirement that a project be “placed in service” (i.e., operational) by the reversion deadline was relaxed to enable projects that merely “start construction” by the deadline to also qualify. Moreover, rather than reverting from 30% directly to 10% in 2020, the credit will instead gradually phase down to 10% over several years: to 26% in 2020, 22% in 2021, and finally 10% for projects that start construction in 2022 or thereafter. Moreover, in June 2018, the IRS issued “safe harbor” guidance clarifying that any project that qualifies for the 30%, 26%, or 22% ITC by starting construction in 2019, 2020, or 2021, respectively, will have until the end of 2023 (i.e., up to 4 years for projects that start construction in 2019) to achieve commercial operations without having to demonstrate a continuous work effort. In practice, this safe harbor guidance likely means that most utility-scale solar projects deployed through 2023 will continue to benefit from the full 30% ITC. Finally, as of October 2019, there were ongoing efforts including bills introduced in both the U.S. House and Senateto extend the 30% ITC for another five years, before the step- down begins. The 30% ITC has aided the utility-scale solar market over the years by enabling lower PPA prices that make solar more affordable, leading to greater deployment. One visible testament to its importance, at least historically, is 2016s record spike in deployment (see Figure 1), which was driven by the scheduled end-of-2016 reversion of the ITC to 10% (though, as noted above, that reversion was ultimately deferred by the late-December 2015 extension through 2019). Barring yet another extension, similar high deployment levels are expected over the next few years, in advance of the step down to 10% (Figure 1). 9 Defining “Utility-Scale” Determining which electric power projects qualify as “utility-scale” (as opposed to commercial- or residential-scale) can be a challenge, particularly as utilities begin to focus more on distributed generation. For solar PV projects, this challenge is exacerbated by the relative homogeneity of the underlying technology. For example, unlike with wind power, where there is a clear difference between utility-scale and residential wind turbine technology, with solar, very similar PV modules to those used in a 5 kW residential rooftop system might also be deployed in a 100 MW ground-mounted utility-scale project. The question of where to draw the line is, therefore, rather subjective. Though not exhaustive, below are three differentand perhaps equally validperspectives on what is considered to be “utility-scale”: Through its Form EIA-860, the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) collects and reports data on all generating plants of at least 1 MW of capacity, regardless of ownership or whether interconnected in front of or behind the meter (note: this report draws heavily upon EIA data for such projects). In their Solar Market Insight reports, Wood Mackenzie and SEIA (“Wood Mackenzie/SEIA”) define utility-scale by offtake arrangement rather than by project size: any project owned by or that sells electricity directly to a utility (rather than consuming it onsite) is considered a “utility-scale” project. This definition includes even relatively small projects (e.g., 100 kW) that sell electricity through a feed-in tariff (“FiT”) or avoided cost contract (Munsell 2014). At the other end of the spectrum, some financiers define utility-scale in terms of investment size, and consider only those projects that are large enough to attract capital on their own (rather than as part of a larger portfolio of projects) to be “utility-scale” (Sternthal 2013). For PV, such financiers might consider a 40 MW (i.e., $50 million) project to be the minimum size threshold for utility-scale. Though each of these three approaches has its merits, this report adopts yet a different approach: utility-scale solar is defined herein as any ground-mounted solar project that is larger than 5 MWAC (separately, ground-mounted PV projects of 5 MWAC or less, along with roof- mounted systems of all sizes, are analyzed in LBNLs annual Tracking the Sun report series). This definition is grounded in consideration of the four main types of data analyzed in this report: installed prices, O Fiorelli and Zuercher - Martinson 2013). This report uses inverter loading ratio, or ILR. 16 This is analogous to the boost in capacity factor achieved by a wind turbine when the size of the rotor increases relative to the turbines nameplate capacity rating. This decline in “specific power” (W/m2 of rotor swept area) causes the generator to operate closer to (or at) its peak rating more often, thereby increasing capacity factor. 17 Power clipping, also known as power limiting, is comparable to spilling excess water over a dam (rather than running it through the turbines) or feathering a wind turbine blade. In the case of solar, however, clipping occurs electronically rather than physically: as the DC input to the inverter approaches maximum capacity, the inverter moves away from the maximum power point so that the array operates less efficiently (Advanced Energy 2014; Fiorelli and Zuercher - Martinson 2013). In this sense, clipping is a bit of a misnomer, in that the inverter never really even “sees” the excess DC powerrather, it is simply not generated in the first place. Only potential generation is lost. 17 projects, the median ILR has increased over time, from around 1.2 in 2010 to 1.33 in 2018. Fixed- tilt projects commonly feature higher ILRs than tracking projects, consistent with the notion that fixed-tilt projects have more to gain from boosting the ILR in order to achieve a less-peaky, “tracking-like” daily production profile. Since 2013, however, the median ILR of tracking and fixed-tilt projects has been nearly the same, and in 2016 and 2017 tracking projects even outpaced fixed-tilt installations (1.33 vs. 1.31). 2018 projects reverted again to the traditional relationships (1.41 for fixed-tilt, 1.31 for tracking), pushed by high-ILR projects in Florida and the Northeast. The overall ILR range among all projects in 2018 remains quite large (1.14 to 1.59), pointing to continued diversity in design practices. Figure 7. Trends in Inverter Loading Ratio by Mounting Type and Installation Year Utility-scale PV battery projects are becoming more common Despite an increasing number of announcements about new PV battery projects in the pipeline (see, for example, Table 3, Figure 37, and Figure 38), relatively few projects have been built to date. In 2018, seven new projects featuring batteries connected to utility-scale PV plants came online (see Figure 3). Three of these new batteries were added to existing PV-only projects that came online in 2016 (foreshadowing the potential for a large retrofit market) while the other four were installed concurrently with new PV projects. All seven of these new storage projects use lithium-ion batteries, sized to match 5-135% of the corresponding PV capacity (in MWAC terms). Most focus predominantly on the ability to shift energy for later use (up to 5 hours at full capacity), while the primary purpose of one system is the provision of grid reliability services in a region that is home to many large renewable energy projects. 18 2.2 Installed Project Prices (641 projects, 22.9 GWAC) This section analyzes installed price data from a large sample of the overall utility-scale PV project population described in the previous section.18 It begins with an overview of installed prices for PV projects over time, and then breaks out those prices by mounting type (fixed-tilt vs. tracking), project size, and region. A text box at the end of this section compares our top-down empirical price data with a variety of estimates derived from bottom-up cost models. Sources of installed price information include the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Treasury Departments Section 1603 Grant database, data from applicable state rebate and incentive programs, state regulatory filings, FERC Form 1 filings, corporate financial filings, interviews with developers and project owners, and finally, the trade press. All prices are reported in real 2018 dollars. In general, only fully operational projects for which all individual phases were in operation at the end of 2018 are included in the sample19i.e., by definition, our sample is backward-looking and therefore may not reflect installed price levels for projects that are completed or contracted in 2019 and beyond. Moreover, reported installed prices within our backward-looking sample may reflect transactions (e.g., entering into an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction or “EPC” contract) that occurred several years prior to project completion. In some cases, those transactions may have been negotiated on a forward-looking basis, reflecting anticipated future costs at the time of project construction. In other cases, they may have been based on contemporaneous costs (or a conservative projection of costs), in which case the reported installed price data may not fully capture recent fluctuations in component costs or other

2019-12-01 75页 5星级