Abstract: . . .  and closed-loop biomass projects, are by their nature less effective than other incentives at stimulating the successful development of large commercial projects. Given the potential for state clean energy funds to cost-effectively support large amounts of renewable energy by funding highly visible utility-scale renewable energy projects, support for such projects is likely to persist into the future, and even increase as a number of new programs (e.g., Rhode Island, New Jersey) begin to bear fruit. It is therefore more important than ever for state clean energy funds to continue to learn from . . .
. . .  closed-loop biomass projects, are by their nature less effective than other incentives at stimulating the successful development of large commercial projects. Given the potential for state clean energy funds to cost-effectively support large amounts of renewable energy by funding highly visible utility-scale renewable energy projects, support for such projects is likely to persist into the future, and even increase as a number of new programs (e.g., Rhode Island, New Jersey) begin to bear fruit. It is therefore more important than ever for state clean energy funds to continue to learn from successes and . . .
. . .  funds – led by the Sustainable Development Fund in PECO’s service territory – have jointly provided $3.6 million in subordinated debt financing to the 9 MW Somerset wind project. Research Questions: What steps can funds take to shore up project revenue certainty? At what stage of development can clean energy funds have the most impact? What types of funding (e.g., pre-development grants, grants, production incentives, etc.) are least/most valuable to developers? What types of funding reduce the value of the PTC? How are other states/countries supporting large-scale projects? Working through these . . .
. . .  Box 2 (continued): Demand is Critical To Project Completion and Success Because high initial success rates in Pennsylvania and New York may not be indicative of what most states can expect, there are several proactive steps that clean energy funds might consider to ensure adequate revenue for worthy projects: 1) Funds might consider “full cost” or “target price” auctions, where renewable projects bid and receive the full ¢/kWh cost of their project. Winning bidders then remit to the fund any power sales revenue that is generated. Unlike a production incentive auction, a full-cost auction eliminates . . .
. . .  incentive so that it does not reduce the value of other state and federal tax incentives; #"How to cope with nascent markets or market rules that might not value the project’s output; and #"Whether to employ grants, production incentives, or some other form of financing such as subordinated debt. This survey of fund experience with grants, forgivable loans, and production incentives finds that clean energy funds have achieved various degrees of success under different support regimes: New York has successfully supported wind power with a (form of) grant while Illinois has not (yet), and Pennsylvania . . .
--3000,5,300,3386,58865