CREA blames CUC for stalled adoption of green energy
(CNS): The rapid uptake of the latest release of just 3MWs of renewable energy capacity under CUC’s CORE programme is due to the “scarcity and artificial demand” intentionally created by CUC and allowed by OfReg, according to Cayman Renewable Energy Association Chairman James Whittaker. In a statement posted on social media, he said the latest incremental release of grid access for solar owners is acting as a barrier to the development of Cayman’s renewable sector.
The release of capacity this month was entirely taken up in just five hours, demonstrating the demand from domestic users of solar, and CREA said this “stop-start” release is undermining Cayman’s national energy policy targets and the slow adoption of green energy.
Responding to comments made on Cayman Marl Road’s social media platform by CUC’s VP for Customer Service and Technology, Sacha Tibbetts, CREA said there should be no barriers to the demand, “least of all the constriction of capacity by a monopoly utility company that benefits from the sale of fossil fuel-generated energy”.
In a statement that raised a number of concerns about Cayman’s slow adoption of solar energy, CREA said that to meet the Cayman Islands Government’s energy policy goal that 70% of all power will be generated from renewable by 2037, the island should be aiming to install as much distributed solar capacity now as it can.
“This kind of solar energy takes up existing developed space, such as rooftops, and saves degrading natural land for large solar farms, among other benefits. The island needs to be installing tens of MW’s worth of capacity every year to reach this 70% target, not having CUC release small amounts of capacity every few months or years,” CREA stated.
This stop-start increase of capacity is not sustainable for either installers or consumers, CREA argued. “This sporadic and limited release of capacity has already put local companies out of business,” it said, adding that the main problem is CUC “drip feeding the island renewable capacity” rather than allowing individuals to take installations on their properties into their own hands.
CUC has said on a number of occasions that it is not withholding the capacity to manipulate the sector but does it because of the need to manage grid stability and that the company is keen to roll out much more renewable capacity. “The primary strategy of the company is to get as much… affordable solar on the grid as possible,” Tibbets said when he appeared on CMR, dismissing the allegations that CUC is deliberately undermining the adoption of green energy.
Tibbetts said it was about ensuring a secure, safe supply of electricity for all consumers, and denying that CUC was wedded to diesel, he said its long-term goal was 100% dependence on renewable resources.
However, CREA said that CUC’s own 2017 study showed that the release of more capacity would not make the grid unstable and claimed that CUC’s approach is fuelled by other reasons.
CUC began the CORE and DER programmes well over a decade ago, but Cayman is still only generating around 3% of its energy needs from renewables. The Cayman Islands Government has also expressed concern about the slow adoption. Last April, Premier Wayne Panton announced CIG plans to take ownership of future renewable facilities to create more energy security for the country. But since that announcement almost a year ago, there have been no further developments.
CREA believes the problem is not about the slow development of large-scale facilities but the limit on allowing the installation of solar technology all over the island on rooftops and other suitable surfaces. Among the many arguments that CREA makes about what it says is CUC’s failing approach and OfReg’s failure to address it is the power company’s goal of providing large utility solar, which would enable CUC to control the resource and continue its monopoly.
CREA noted that CUC is “the primary beneficiary of intentional actions to limit the adoption of consumer renewables in the Cayman Islands, which risks putting their competitors in the renewable energy sector out of business by shutting down their ability to operate for months at a time. CUC hopes to then capitalize on this situation once the damage is done,” the association said.
CREA, a non-profit organisation, was formed in 2015 to promote the green energy sector. It is recognised by the Cayman Islands Government, OfReg and CUC as Cayman’s only consumer advocacy association for clean energy in the Cayman Islands. But to create more green jobs, the organisation said that CUC needs to allow a continual release of capacity until the country reaches the targets.
In the wake of another minor release of capacity and indications from CUC that it may release a few more megawatts in about three months, CREA is now asking the power provider to declare the maximum capacity to which solar energy could be raised right now and provide evidence of this to the public.
“Meeting the renewable energy targets in the National Energy Policy but enabling a renewable energy monopoly in the process will hurt the people of the Cayman Islands while only benefiting CUC and its shareholders,” CREA said. “Renewable energy is a disruptive technology and democratizing force;
everyone can own a piece of it, and this is what monopoly utilities fear.”
CNS has reached out to CUC for comment, and we are awaiting their response.
See the full statement from CREA here or below:
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Energy, Science & Nature
Formed in 2015, CREA is a non-profit organisation registered in the Cayman Islands. I don’t understand why the members of the Board are afraid to be named. Many of us in the public support much of the efforts of the organisation but being so private about the other members of the Board does make one curious….
“and OfReg take a hands-off” their contribution is always what it was and will be ZIP.
I own a 3 bed 1700 sq ft home and I am going OFF GRID with solar.
There are people all over the world that is making this work. I will take my chances. Better than CUC and the BS.
Research off grid, we can do this.
Until CUC sues you as James mentioned in a previous comment.
I would love to see James point to an actual instance of fact to support that claim.
The link below is the CMR interview that the CREA press release is referring to. Mr Tibbetts of CUC comes in at 52:11 in the video. Form your own opinions.
https://youtu.be/njW_YPbROT8
No one seems to consider two issues here.
What happens in a serious hurricane? Would it rip solar from people’s roofs?
How does the salt air affect the solar panels and the attached electronics?
Someone told me that some 30% of the CUC solar farm is out of commission due to salt corrosion.
It’s not CUC’s solar farm
wow…welcome to questions from 25 years ago.
another cuc employee post……zzzzzzzzzzzz
Ours is over 10 years old and still works just fine. Only maintenance is getting up there to clean it once or twice a year as it works better that way.
This is the problem when you let wokeness and politics drive science…
I am no fan of paying 500.00 a month to CUC to use my AC and run my fridge… BUT
To derive 70% of all power in Cayman by 2037 from solar a pure anti-science lunacy and a financially-reckless pipe-dream, unless the current technology is _radically_ transformed. To do this with current technology (not even factoring growth) is impossible, and not only that it’s a really really bad idea. The cost to service this new (and non-existent) infrastructure is very high and extremely inefficient. Solar is NOT EFFICIENT as a primary-high capacity energy source for a country’s infrastructure. huge foot print, high cost for little in return in comparison.
This is why there are NO countries ON THE PLANET, None! that are even close to deriving 70% of it’s energy by Solar! 8% is the top in the EU and the single most country is 14.8 percent and that’s a poor country with a minimal infrastructure. GET REAL! And those hyped-up numbers are the best case on a good sunny day.
For the size of Cayman, fossil is the clear viable path for the foreseeable future with the technology we have now. We should be looking at natural gas and hydrogen. Perhaps even Mico-nuclear as real alternative (To drive natural hydrogen production) , but good luck with the hysterical-wokes on island even talking about this.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
It appears your knowledge and research on where countries are actually at in renewable energy penetration percentage is way off. There are literally dozens of countries, states and even islands that are already 25-50% renewable energy powered and several on their way past 70% by the end of this decade (much less two decades from now). Kuai has a similar grid to ours and primary uses solar and storage and they too have a far higher penetration that Cayman (3%) and will be 70% long before our targets. So I’m afraid in short you are simply incorrect.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/kauai-quit-using-oil-to-produce-most-of-its-electricity-years-ago-thats-paying-off-now/
Lastly nuclear energy is actually illegal in Cayman. We could debate the pros and cons but in the end as of right now it’s irrelevant as it has not legally been possibly and largely for good reasons.
Absolute BS. Sorry, you are presenting misleading information. What is the percentage of “SOLAR” energy exceeds 8-14%? Name the countries.
You can’t compare Cayman to countries that have hydro or geothermic.
Not sure how wokeness comes into this. Also it’s science and technology driving (or should be) driving political policy – not the other way round.
Hawaii is currently over a third renewable (i.e. 10x Cayman) and will achieve 70% by the end of this decade. It’s being done – not just possible.
Hawaii, Great.
Here is their breakdown:
Solar energy – 13%
Wind energy – 13%
Bioenergy – 9%
Hydroelectric power – 2%
Hawaii landmass area: 4,028 square miles
Cayman landmass Area:76 square miles
Cayman has .018 the landmass of Hawaii. (Large Island)
Critical think is dead.
The wokeness part is to institute feel-good pipe dream as policy and end up screwing over every one the process of the good-intentions. And of course, as with all feel-good, all caring, saviors of humankind policies, the poorest among us ends up the worst affected.
When this certainty of a failure becomes a reality, what we we be paying for the electricity once the cost infrastructure has been spent to produce 1/100th of it’s anticipated energy production?
Trying to make red herrings. The National Energy Policy says 70% renewable energy, not 70% solar.
https://www.be-the-story.com/en/environment/the-cleanest-countries-leading-the-way-to-renewable-energy/
Solar isn’t the only answer.
Name the viable renewable energy sources for Cayman, that can derive 70% of its energy consumption from.
Where do you put a wind farm in Cayman that can supplement 60% of the expected 70%.
we all live in the CUC submarine…the politicians submarine…come on guys..sing! lol
First, I would like to say that I am a proud CUC employee. Actually I’m not, but anyone who disagrees with James will receive that label. Maybe Richie will buy me a beer the next time I see him.
Anyone with the least bit of common sense knows that CUC the company is not a monopoly. However, they do have a monopoly on transmission and distribution of electricity. Nobody is every likely to challenge that as the cost of planting poles and running wires will never be worth the expense. However, when the technology is feasible for delivering electricity without wires I look forward to asking them to remove their pole from my yard.
Large scale production and supply of electricity using diesel generators, or any other means, is open to anyone, and has been for a few years. The most recent (not sure how many years ago it was) bid to produce electricity was won by CUC. Dart was in the bidding, and undoubtedly once Dart has gained sufficient knowledge from running Brac Power they will eventually win one of the bids.
Now on to some of the baseless nonsense James has posted. Unfortunately, the release posted on CNS is a scanned document that I cannot copy the text from, so I will have to type it out:
“They then use the very situation they created for paying consumers lower rates than the true value their solar is worth. CUC knows for a certainty that the current rates being paid are not commensurate with the value customers should be getting for their solar.
The purpose of OfReg, if they have any brains, balls, or sense, is to see that CUC provides electricity to all of us at the cheapest or optimal price. I cannot ask for $50 per kilowatt-hour for the electricity I produce by shaking a gold-plated ding dong. The value of electricity produced by solar is intrinsinctly linked to the cost of producing it by other means. Today that is CUC diesel engines. End of story. Maybe James is just pi$$ed so many others are now competing with him for solar customers.
Now on to the scary part:
“The Value of Solar study, completed in the last few months confirms this and now expertly quantifies what is and is not a subsidy. Predictably CUC does not support the rate findings of independent study, which is yet to be released to the public.
Whoa Nelly! James is quoting from a non-public document? Who commissioned this study? Was it you James? Who conducted this study? What were the terms of reference? Looks like I might have to buy Richie a beer instead to see if I can get some info. However, I heard that some accusations were thrown at James and some government officials in email messages by OfReg board members. Unfortunately, I am not in the circles that got to read any of them. Maybe James is trying to get ahead of what might fallout from that.
Now the last part:
“CREA does not support CUC’s decision to explore options for assisting customers in obtaining access to solar and storage through CUC-developed programs and financing and neither should the public.”
I have to tell you James, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about who is offering the assistance. As a customer using between 1500 and 2000 kilowatt-hours each month, I am willing to accept assistance from anyone willing to put up the money that can help me to reduce my monthly electric costs. If that reduces the free and easy money that has been flowing to you all these years then you will just have to pull up your big boy pants and try harder.
The Value of Solar Study was commissioned by OfReg.
https://www.ofreg.ky/viewPDF/documents/news/2022-11-21-00-44-43-CUC-OfReg-Solar-Studies-PRESS-RELEASE-FINAL.pdf
Not clear how CREA is commenting on non-published, non-public results from it though. Probably worth asking OfReg for more info on that.
CREA’s comment on value of solar study is that CUC already knows the findings of the study (as a publicly known member of the Government’s Energy Council who commissioned the study) and thus already understands their claims around what rates consumers ‘should be paid’ are erroneous. We don’t need to speak with OfReg to state the obvious and details from the study will come out when it is made public.
So the EPC, which you chair, is claiming to have commissioned the study and not OfReg in the face of OfReg’s press release?
How is CREA in possession of this non-published study from a government body, since the statement signed by its Board of Directors speaks to clear knowledge of the purported contents and outcome?
A couple of interesting points to address.
– CUC is a monopoly and you already stated the exact basis of that monopoly, T&D. However they also “control” generation because they can just say “no more capacity on the t&d” and therein lies the rub as they say.
– Additionally, Cayman will be well served to end CUCs monopoly on T&D and it has nothing so with the need to replace any poles. Without exclusivity commercial microgrids, community solar and independent power producers will be free to “sell” energy and they don’t need the cuc grid to do that with scale. It can be mutually beneficial to still grid connected then but not commercially necessary. So I think you understanding of their monopoly and why breaking it is good for consumers in general is off.
– Myself and and CREA argue endless for an industry with MORE competition (and more jobs, mor economic benefit, etc) not less. So that tells me you don’t know very much about the basics of what I or CREA advocate for but we’d certainly invite you to learn more if the best interest of cayman and consumers is indeed your concern.
– While you may not care about CUC (a monopoly utility who know one can compete with to sell eneegy but wants to compete with small businesses to sell and finance solar) competing against the private sector but most of Cayman surely does. The end result is binary… either you support free markets competition for providing consumers renewables or you support a monopoly doing so. It’s a zero sum game because no one can compete with CUCs monopoly advantages and they know and so do we. If you believe then that a monopoly over free competition is best for consumer well you’re entitled to that view and I’m sure CUC would agree with you wholeheartedly. Alas we believe competition is what’s best for consumers and by cayman law “fair” competition is required.
– The value of solar is more than cuc fuel costs, there are economic (jobs, etc), environmental (land use, etc), grid benefits (transmission efficiency), resiliency, etc etc. that are quantifiable and that is what the value to solar study is for. So I’m afraid despite your skepticism these are well understood concepts and consumers are entitled to getting the full value of what they’re providing. Interestingly enough installed solar costs are at 2017 levels today (supply chain issues, inflation, etc) as shown by the NREL 2022 report, which means the rate CUC and OfReg publicly stated was “fair” back then to pay to consumers is almost twice as much as that they’re saying is fair today. This is why the value of solar study is important for consumers, it take a quantitative approach versus the “made up and ever shifting” reason used to sets rates prior.
– I think you should speak to any solar company here in Cayman and ask them how free and easy it is to operate in Cayman with the way CUCs actions. Better yet, since it flows so freely please start a solar company and join us. We welcome you with open arms and you can prove to your contention definitively.
In 2017 when that report mentioned in the article was first published stating that CUC had a 29 MW capacity -if CUC had dumped all that capacity on the solar market then – we without solar would be paying a hefty price now because at the time rooftop solar energy generators were getting $0.30+ per kwh…
CUC reopened the grid in 2023 when the offer was $0.15 per kwh and people scooped up the capacity in 5 hrs!
We, without solar, who cannot afford solar or who are renting from landlords who give 2 specks about what their tenants’ CUC bills are will not benefit from solar anytime soon.
We can go to CUC with $300 and connect to full electricity – it would take $30,000 to install solar to generate the same power. Solar is a great move, but we have to be realistic about who and how it will benefit, and when.
That is not the issue.
The issue is that the monopoly and it not so independent regulators prohibit net metering.
That is the crux. We need net metering and none of this codswallop of compulsory “Buy high from CUC” and “Sell low to CUC”.
Unfortunately, the people spouting net-metering are the ones with solar who want more for the electricity they generate. If CUC was a co-op owned by the people of the Cayman Islands that would be fine.
Why don’t we have net-milking? That’s where I buy one gallon of milk per week and if I am particularly hungover on Saturday morning I go over to my neighbour’s house and get a glass of milk there to top up my demand. On the weekends when all is well, I can take my milk that might go bad in the next few days and put it in my neighbour’s fridge.
Net-milking works really well for me, but no so much for my neighbour.
The whole argument about grid stability is very odd to me. Right now my roof has 0 solar so 100% of my power comes from the grid.
If tomorrow I add solar and a few days later it is cloudy then my home just goes back to doing what it’s doing at this very instant which CUC has no problem supplying.
So the only way I see this being an issue is if you’re talking about a significant boom in newly constructed loads that also have a lot of solar on them. For existing homes I don’t see how solar creates grid instability.
Open up the market. That said…no more subsidies either. This needs to stand on its own two feet or not at all. CUC is a monopoly but the solar guys are not a significantly different oligopoly with only three main players to speak of so let’s be careful chucking rocks in the glass house. I like James but he should not be president of Crea due to the conflicts of interest which unfortunately diminish the value of his opinions when he speaks on Creas behalf.
Let’s also switch to net metering so I’m not paying fuel charges for power when my panels are making it. Current system is goofy if you ask me
It is not as simple as “I use solar today and when it rains I use grid”.
The fact is (or one of the facts), if you and every other grid-connected solar home is using solar today and then the day suddenly goes cloudy and everyone needs grid power – any electricity provider has to be READY and POWERED UP to SUDDENLY start generating and distributing more power, to more properties which were not previously being serviced by the grid because they were using solar.
To give an example:
If there is a village of 10,000 homes, and 5,000 homes go on-grid solar power and the village’s electricity provider then decides to shut off and stop servicing one of its generators because half its customers got solar.
Then, one cloudy week, every on-grid solar home owner decides, “YIKES, we have no solar power!” So they all switch back temporarily to the grid.
BUT, the electricity provider had shut off and stopped servicing their additional generator, so now with all these solar folks hopping back on, it puts additional strain on that one generator the electricity provider kept going for its 5,000 customers that did not get solar!
Then power starts flickering and becoming intermittent for everyone because the single active generator is pressured to power the 5,000 grid customers and the 5,000 solar homes. The electricity provider then must find additional team members to recommission the second dormant generator to service all the solar people who had not been contributing to the expense of running a hundred million dollar electricity generating business.
Then all the regular customers who were paying the bills while the solar people weren’t are then faced with unstable electricity – a preschoolers explanation of one aspect of grid instability.
Another example (if you have used a little small home-use generator) is when you plug too many electronics in to it and you can here the engine rev-down or the electrical device flickers or gets weak – same concept but instead of a $700 generation, you have a $100m+ generator.
There is a delicate balance that must be achieved, and it does not happen overnight.
The solutions to the solar vs generator capacity example you have given is well known today and CUC knows this. It’s an old argument with very little merit sitting at 3%.
The answer is the viability of renewables and energy storage technology today and it negates entirely the example you’ve given, which harkens back to simplistic claims of “sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t always blow” which btw are arguments CUC used not too long ago prior to its IRP in 2017.
Indeed yes, there is a balance and it does take time, the problem is that balance (where long duration energy storage is required for very high penetration of renewables) is FAR away from where CUC and Cayman is today and the “overnight” claims are negated by taking more than a decade to attain only 3% renewables while stopping more adoption for years at a time, when other countries are 10X and more ahead of us using all the same technologies.
All of which doesn’t also account for the fact that climate change is waiting on no one and if Cayman and other island states on the front lines of the effects want the world to change drastically we have to pull our own weight.
These are the fundamental problems with your calls for balance and taking your time.
Where is the 3% coming from? You keep using it but it’s not clear what you mean by this value.
3% of energy is produced from renewable means.
It doesn’t happen overnight. Thisns not the isssue. For the last decade plus really nothing has happened. Nothing, or 2%. Do you find this even remotely acceptable?
What about batteries?… Everyone is focused on just the solar power generated but if a home has sufficient battery capacity that is charged by solar then that cloudy day no longer plays a major factor. Batteries should be treated the same as solar panels and have their duty waived to allow home owners to be able to afford their own. I concede that a centralized battery solar farm is more efficient but if all we’re worried about is not stressing the diesel generators then having solar homes have to also accommodate a certain storage capacity then it becomes a nonissue.
Yes because you assume everyone can afford solar on their roof and the expensive Lipo batteries??
Wouldn’t that mean even more stress on the grid after cloudy days? The generators now need to supply power to the grid on cloudy days and then also supply grid power and recharge batteries in extended cloudy days
Because CIG’s planning department will not provide a CO if you have solar and are not grid-tied. They are protecting CUC as the primary energy provider.
James – Can you provide further insight as to why that is the case? Should we not be allowed to be off-grid?
Ok I understand exactly what you mean. But this is not a village with 50% of the people having solar on the roof. We have a miserable 3%. And the way the sun and the weather works is that it’s not going to slam on and off like you’re describing. The sun rises and sets or the clouds come and go in the same way that loads add and subtract. Think about how many AC loads ramp up and down through the day as the sun moves across the sky. I do not believe that such a tiny percentage of rooftop solar would adversely affect the grid. Not unless you start getting to percentages as you’ve cited on the order of 50% give or take.
It doesn’t happen over 20 years of solar, either, if you trust CUC to do it willingly.
Couple of points..
– CUC and OfReg will never support switching to net metering by their own admission. FIT (CORE) program provides them much more “control” and they’d simply prefer to kill both FIT and net metering and focus on utility scale.
– Most every industry/advocacy association is lead by someone in the industry who has a level of expertise or experience on the subject (law, accounting, banking, finance, marketing, etc) so whether it’s James or Bob or Karen or Steve or whomever, chances are it’ll inherently be someone in or was in industry leading it and the same unjust criticism will be levied. The irony is most of CREAs board and members have nothing to do with the solar industry, which is more than most other associations can say.
– For context, keep in mind on these issues you’re typically fighting a monopoly business trying to maintain control of that from any competition but then leveling accusations of bias and self interest on others, it’s quite the comedy of irony and you really can’t make it up.
James, the CUC DER program offers net metering and has for years. Yet another incomplete point made by you.
Queue James’ response that the DER program doesn’t work. When I’m fact there are a number of megawatts of DER systems out there many of which his company installed.
I’m not James but the DER program does not offer net metering and is the worst system that anyone ever created.
To be clear the DER program goes not work for the vast majority of Caymans consumers.
‘That’ is the salient fact and has been the ‘actual’ criticism and is contrary to all the press releases by CUC and OfReg inferring otherwise.
Pointing to MWs of DER adopted by a small handful of large commercial entities/developers is intentionally
Misleading, but well to which those entities dip into as often as they can while forgetting to disclose the full picture.
Ps- DER is self-consumption but is not not consumer net-metering. Let’s not to mislead people at every turn.
just another civil service cig failure.
we live in a place where the sun melts paint off cars but our government actively makes it difficult for people to use solar….all to protect a cuc diesel burning monopoly.
yep…welcome to wonderland1
Anyone who wants solar, and can afford solar, can get solar. They just cannot connect to the grid when CUC closes its grid capacity off.
But, any property owner is free to install solar as and when they please; they will just have to install off-grid solar. You can contact local solar providers or perhaps CREA can offer more information on how to do this. But CUC is not really stopping anybody from getting solar to their property.
CUC knows this is the equivalent of saying “anyone can compete with cable & wireless’ monopoly because you could just buy a satellite phone.” Understanding full well that 1) for 99% of people offgrid is not economically viable and 2) that CUC has also argued to take away your right to be offgrid and 3) argues routinely offgrid is not in the best interests of consumers.
The obfuscating is due to the fact that there are ways the grid can benefit everyone which can deploy much more renewable energy than the 3% achieved now after more than a decade, but that requires a level of pace, change and loss of control that the utility simply does not want forced upon them.
It’s their grid and they want total control of it, but it’s our “our grid” when hurricanes roll around and we all have to pay for repairing it. Nothing in life is free, and CUC gets a free insurance policy from the people of the Cayman Islands for that grid so they should get more equitable access to it as a result.
That’s what OfReg is “supposed” to be there for.
I think you mean CUC Offreg failure. 8;46
Shut down Offeg and return the duties to civil servants if you want high performance.
IME the only thing that stopped me getting solar, I had a core agreement in place, was the obscene installation prices demanded by the local companies even if I imported all the same kit they were proposing for a fraction of the price.
I would encourage you to get multiple quotes for your solar system and also do some additional research on the installed costs of solar. What you will find is the prices in Cayman are directly comparable with North America. See attached for evidence. The issue isn’t cost are high in Cayman, the key to accessing renewables is viable financing from the private sector being readily available to all, but that is being blocked and stifled and I’ll let you guess who is doing so.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84515.pdf
Butterfield is offering specific loan packages to finance renewable energy. I think other banks are, too. What exactly is the issue stopping financing if these programmes are available and being advertised by the banks?
Yep, CNB is offering it too:
I believe the ‘problem’ is the payback. The argument usually goes that for solar to get taken up your need (i) affordable material & installation, (ii) bank financing, (iii) the ability to sell back the excess energy you generate so that you can pay your loan. Point (iii) is where CREA & CUC/OfReg lock horns. And where the phrase “viable financing from the private sector being readily available to all” likely comes from. If you can afford solar – cash in hand or pay the loan – you can get it. But if you need to rely on getting into CORE to pay the loan then you’re basically out of luck.
The problem is purely the payback. The main one is having programs to actually finance. Would you if programs opened for only four hours over 15 months? CUC know exactly what they are doing in this regard.
This is not true.
Wonder what Premier Panton’s views on this are and if he actually understands the green energy sector.
If we’re fighting for competition, why aren’t we fighting for competitive price? On the one hand, CREA says everyone should have the right to sell energy to the grid. On the other hand, they say it shouldn’t have to be competitively priced. Who bears that burden? Not CUC – it goes right on to our bills. This veneer of buzzwords, like democratization and competition, are a flimsy façade to hide that these positions are not good for consumer, they are good for the minority with the solar and the people that sell those systems while the rest of us pick up the cheque.
Lots of OfReg management speak infused with CUC lobbying there. To correct your erroneous claim, CREA has never said it shouldn’t be competitively price or argued against fair competition. To the contrary, we advocate and promote fair competition in the provision of solar to consumers daily and have proposed a range of options to OfReg over the years that saw rooftop solar dome at or below the cost of diesel. What you fail to grasp here is that most rooftop solar can be done at less than than cost of diesel with the proper scale, programs and regulations and thus no subsidy and smaller systems at a rate reflective of the value that solar provides to the country. Instead you have bought into the CUC pushed “least cost fallacy” which tries to negate rooftop solar on the basis that larger solar (utility scale) is cheaper, and thus unless smaller solar can compete on price it should not be supported, albeit again both can be done with no subsidies to consumers and there are many pros/cons to supporting each (land use, job creation, etc. if OfReg was the least bit competent over the years and didn’t buy into CUC’s least cost fallacy we’d already have much cheaper rooftop solar on the grid today. Caymans competitive solar market is providing consumer solar on par with North Americas costs and we advocate for a stable industry where all companies continually compete for consumers business; so claiming CREA is against fair competition in any form is itself a fallacy and intentionally misleading but this is a talking point from the usual suspects we are used to debunking.
Then why are you pushing for higher prices to be paid to solar producers, per some unpublished report that CREA has access to? I don’t understand how the rooftop solar prices would be cheaper today when every time prices get lowered by OfReg, CREA and solar installers consistently provide comments to consultations opposing those prices dropping? My understanding is that the general price of household solar equipment is about 70% less than it was 10 years ago. But the rates paid for new solar today are not 70% less than what they were 10 years ago. Walk me through that disconnect here. There is a better return to new solar now than when I put it in (at least based on what your company charged me then).
On the face of it, it would appear the hindrance to low cost rooftop solar are the installers and CREA, based on their own words.
https://www.ofreg.ky/viewPDF/documents/consultations/2021-05-12-06-08-21-1615245378202103FinalDeterminationonRECRTSFINAL.pdf
The Cayman price is on a par with the $12 head of lettuce I saw the othe r day.
Solar should be a RIGHT. How is it that I can be prevented from making my own energy?? CUC has had 20 years to fix ‘grid stability’ but has chosen not to!
Make it and use it all you want – just don’t try to sell it to me at inflated prices.
Sorry. CUC and OfReg does not allow you to make it and use it all you want, they will sue you and/or disconnect you from the grid if you try that; and it doesn’t matter in that reality if you sell any of it back or not.
Under what grounds are they allowed to sue you if you have solar and batteries and are not part of the CORE programme?
Evidence?
CNS, can you provide more info on CREA being formed by the government? The website only states it was formed in 2015, with no mention of government involvement in their intended remit.
CNS: Sorry! Our error. The text has been amended.
Who or what is CREA? Who are the board members? Can they please reveal themselves? I went on the website and had Latin thrown at me when I went the “Our Founders” page.
I would like to know about this entity, because I am trying to understand how James W. is the Chairperson of CREA, has his own commercial solar company that he is openly representing here and is heading up the council for the national energy policy?
Well said, so much obvious conflicts.
No surprises here. CUC has actively opposed the introduction of alternative energy sources for at least the past 15 years. Back then they were saying solar wouldn’t work because the sun goes down at night and wind power was no good because there were times when the wind didn’t blow. The Minister responsible at the time even went on record as saying diesel was the only viable option. In 2007 CUC blocked plans to integrate privately-owned solar panels into the power grid stating that no equipment was available to do this safely even though they must have known that was completely untrue. Next they offered OTEC as a token ‘green’ gesture knowing full well it was a dead end. Get used to this because it’s not going to end any time soon.
CUC are like a mafia that control OfReg instead of being regulated by them.
CUC are solely profit driven where directors make healthy contributions to political campaigns. Many are PEPS and political political appointees. That guarantees their interests supersede the overall public interests by key decision makers that make and implement policies.
CUC are not interested in everybody getting access to solar energy unless CUC are also the company providing the products and installation services. That is why CREA are justified in their criticisms.
If OfREG will not properly adhere to the CIG National Energy Policy and properly regulate licensees there is no point in OfREG existing.
Feel free to go back to the oil lamps and hand fans of the days before CUC took its chance and came to Cayman’s dusty roads
The oil lamps or the future is where we will be if we don’t embrace the changes needed.
Imagine actually typing that out and thinking you were contributing something. CUC has profited hand over fist on the backs of hard-working Caymanians for decades; they would not be here if that were not the case. Any allusions to them being some messianic figure for the betterment of our islands are hilarious at best.
We all thanked “cable and wireless” fro what they did in the ’70s and ’80s to get the financial services industry to come, stay and flourish here….but (the “old”) they (eventually) went the way of the DoDo when DigiCel came in and forced them to be competitive….how ever expensive telecommunications are now, they were 5 times that in the mid-90s and the service was cr@p…..
Sorry CUC – as a monopolistic dinosaur you will go the way of King Canute and eventually, you too will not be able to keep back the tides (of change)…..
As a solar / battery user i can speak from experience. I installed the system and all the power needs of my home is completely powered by the batteries at night with spare room for hosting a CORE program connection that only ensures the charge of the cars (all electrics), and that part might even move off grid as well in the near future.
Is our home new and efficient? I will reply with a resounding NO yet we maintain year round 75°F temperatures throughout the place come hell or high water.
What the house couldn’t achieve with efficiency is compensated by the system’s size.
Could solar on the island be brought to scale , it certainly can if CUC would be willing to implement Megapacks storage but they are more than unwilling to invest in both the battery storage AND modernizing the transformers that you can see on top of each pole to allow for the paradigm change that is solar.
For those that worry about grid instability, I would like to point out this is a false debate altogether especially if the storage is installed at the substation level. I guess that is one part the “engineers” at CUC don’t want even to consider.
I can demonstrate our installation ad nauseam, bills in hand and consumption data in hand.
The funny part is, I did not go through the installation process for profit, I went through it because of the constant issues I faced regarding the poor delivery of power that forced me to install uninterruptible power supplies all over the home. The number of power events since installation went from over 20 a day to an astounding 0.
What about the cost ? The CORE installation was about 36K CI all delivered, the off grid install was about 130K with the batteries. Those systems don’t relate to one another (aka the batteries aren’t charged by the CORE installation and I would add that given CUC’s infrastructure this isn’t something CUC can handle anytime soon without upgrading their installations at the pole level).
You can take a peek here if you want to:
https://goo.gl/maps/r9dd4rSNFRLhQgfw7
The REAL problem is that there is close no will within the CIG at the moment to act for fear of ruffling CUC’s feathers CUC share offering a nice 5 percent risk free return on investment.
I agree entirely with Mr Whittaker’s take on CUC’s “offer” to increase capacity, this is yet another handout of a pittance. Their offer to finance solar would be candidate to the CORE program is yet another diversionary tactic to further entrench their stranglehold on the energy market.
You spent 36K so you could charge your Teslas and put that system on Core so you still get a CUC bill on that same juice? Plus 130K for your house system? That’s a nice round $200,000 US plus your monthly charge under CORE. Other than the value of virtue signaling, this seems uneconomic, not to mention the inevitable aggravation of maintenance.
Landlord had solar at the last place. He had no battery storage but it kept his big house and my 2 bed apartment going steady all year round. Several people I know have solar in the UK, and they love it. Only problem is the time it takes (in savings on your typical bill) to pay you back, and that’s usually around 10 years – in the UK – where they barely have any sun. Don’t believe the naysayers. If you’re young and buying or building a home, you will absolutely benefit from solar.
Spotting CUC staff posting as anonymous is as difficult as shooting fish in a barrel. 🙂
What have CUC really done to push the transition to renewable energy? There are ugly concrete poles clogging our roads and illuminating the sky. Without a choice, the cost to transition will be paid for by the consumer whilst shareholders will continue their profit margin.
“ CUC’s approach is fuelled by other reasons” – essentially equating to shareholders fear of falling dividends and devaluation of their investment. Fortis holds majority share in CUC and Mr. Tibbetts is forced to tow the line. He’s mandated to protect and perpetuate the monopoly with the help of syncophants in OfReg and the Consumer Protection Council, both bogus entities that make all the discord disappear.
9:35 PM, why dont you buy shares in CUC ?
I only invest in responsible companies. If CUC were committed to switching to renewables and actually doing something about it, I’d be all in.
Because fossil fuel ISN’T THE FUTURE
Really bad long term investment. Would defeat objective of investing.
James sells Solar products ? right ?
I believe he does, this put him in a vary advantageous position to highlight the corruption infesting both CUC and the CIG while they greenwash their agenda and enrich themselves at our expense.
Also puts him in a position of conflict.
Note: James was an advocate of solar and putting solar on his homes years before ever being in the solar industry or being involved with CREA ….. facts do matter, so let’s leave the fluff out and focus on the substance. 😉
Still a conflict of interest.
Meaning unlike you, he actually has a clue what he is talking about.
For sure – it’s a great position to lobby for his business interests!
Here’s a fun thing to think about, when you look at the things CREA advocates for it’s:
1) rooftop solar in Grand Cayman
2) nothing else
Never mind the Sister Islands (where no programs are available to anyone), and never mind anything that they don’t have the ability to sell you. It’s clear that they have a singular focus, which is not to progress renewable energy, but instead to bolster their business interests. Basically the Chamber of Commerce anytime anything pro-labor is spoken about.
The release of capacity this month was entirely taken up in just five hours, demonstrating the demand from domestic users of solar, and CREA said this “stop-start” release is undermining Cayman’s national energy policy targets and the slow adoption of green energy.
Not sure if anybody understands what James means by “scarcity and artificial demand”, but basic economics says if capacity was all subscribed within five hours of being released then they were getting paid too much to supply the solar energy. The rest of us non-solar-producing customers can see it in our bills
Not really. Over the last three years its been opened a month. This is blatant artificial demand creation as its a first past the post sceanrio every time.
You are mis-equating supply with demand. Artificial demand in this instance would be like applying for the capacity with no intent to actually install it at these rates, then withdrawing the applications later after pricing has changed. Like a pump and dump scheme for stocks. Some basic economics lessons would help the discourse here.
If you limit (or practically eradicate) supply, what happens to demand? Simple economics absolutely.
Demand remains unchanged. Price will impact demand though. Unless we’re looking at items of conspicuous consumption, in which case normal economics don’t factor (think luxury watches, artwork, and so on) because the utility derived by the purchases and the value they are willing to pay is driven in large part by the exclusivity. The smug-factor, if you will. Don’t think this applies here.
Limited or in this case exceedingly limited supply creates greater demand. Yes economics 101.
Actually that’s not how the normal economics work. If the capacity was not (intentionally) constrained then it would have merit. Instead the constraints are put in place, capacity then made very limited (scarcity) and the applicants also open to all and not restricted. This has the net effect of ensuring capacity disappears immediately. Prior to 2019 when this all started the demand was steady and consistent for almost a decade and you had capacity lasting months/years at a time, not hours. A simple example of this is the fact that large developers who have sold condos/apartments with solar included (literally 100’s of them) “must” include the solar on the units and thus they do not care what the rates are for the customers. The rates could be .01 cents and they’d still take all of it because they legally have to include it as part of the contract to sell the condo. So there’s artificial demand and scarcity being intentionally introduced that has nothing to do with basic economics and once you understand that, the real question is “why” and therein lies the rub….
Sounds like those developers are doing us all a favor then. Who knew?
Not a well thought out view.
In that scenario the consumers are the ones losing, those that now have a solar system whose ROI is non existent and didn’t realize it at condo purchase and those who don’t have solar and cannot have solar because the capacity is gone; not much of a favor if you’re not the developer or the utility and regulators who wants to see it disappear as quickly as possible.
CUC propaganda bots in full effect here in the comments. Yes, James profits from the sales of solar panels from his company. No, that doesn’t invalidate any of the facts he has stated. CUC is intentionally hindering the growth of solar in our islands, and it needs to be stopped. The profits of shareholders should not be allowed to take priority over the good of our people. This monopoly needs to end.
I am tired of people adding to my electricity bill! The government treated it like a crisis when fuel costs were more than $0.20 per kWh last year and decided to subsidize energy, and CREA is out here trying to push rooftop solar prices up to that level or more? Isn’t the point to make Cayman affordable and stop putting money into Rubis and ESSO’s global accounts from using imported diesel to generate electricity?
We know solar can be cheap – why is the organization that supposedly represents renewable energy interests trying to make it expensive? You know who would join the march to the government building to fight for $0.05 solar here? Pretty much all of us. Why aren’t we fighting for that?
Just read the statement from CREA, I really don’t understand what they are doing. The say CREA does not recommend allowing CUC to assist customers to get solar and storage. Why is the renewable energy association trying to limit my options for ways to get renewable energy??? Then they say that they want to promote access to renewables for all? I don’t understand…. Why they promoting access but saying if I want it from CUC I can’t get it from them? Must be they want all the business for GreenTech. Now it makes sense to me why Whittaker is arguing for higher rates!
It’s funny to me that you think posting anonymously hides your identity or your own business role. Even funnier is your spin on the fact that what CREA argues is best for consumers is free market competition among “ALL” businesses (existing & future) in the private sector providing goods and services; versus allowing a monopoly to use its monopoly advantages to corner the market all under the guise of claiming not doing so is unfair competition for CUC and bad for consumers. You’re fooling no one my friend, not on your multiple posts in here hiding your identity or the spin in trying to push a monopoly competing unfairly against the private sector (who don’t have exclusive monopoly contracts and guaranteed returns) versus having the entire private sector compete against each other, as is the case in most industries here. It says a lot that you don’t have the courage to sign your name, folks here don’t have the luxury of knowing your pro-monopoly arguments as well as I do. Don’t worry, I won’t tell them who you are and what position you hold if you don’t have the courage to. See you soon. 😉
Didn’t CUC say that CORE was the most expensive energy that exists in Cayman today? Heard that it was costing us 2 million or more a year or something like that. Why is James Whittaker blaming CUC for trying to control this extra cost that we can’t afford!!!! Follow the money!!! More CORE with a higher rate is only going to cost us more on our CUC bills and put more money in James Whittaker’s bank account. and why is James Whittaker also involved with the energy policy council if he is saying we need more high cost energy and asking for higher rates.
wow, CUC has a PR team? I’m not shocked but wow. This comment reeks of spin.
CUC said solar was costing $2m more per year. You mean the company that doesn’t want solar uptake because their revenues are based on return on investment. As more solar is installed at the expense of homeowners/business this reduces the requirement for capital investment from CUC so their revenue drops…
So let’s look at those numbers Truth Serum..
The latest CORE release pays either $0.175 or $0.15 per kwh depending on the size of the installation. For the sake of argument let’s assume an average price of $0.1625
https://caymannewsservice.com/2023/02/cuc-opens-grid-for-another-3mw-of-renewables/
CUC charge in the region of $0.37kwh to residential users (look at your bill)
About $0.24 kwh of this cost of fuel (gov’t fuel duty + fuel cost) meaning that CUC’s effective revenue per kwh is around $0.13 kwh
By adding this margin $0.13 kwh back to the latest CORE price average of $0.1625 you get to about $0.2925 per kwh much lower than the $0.37 currently being charged, in fact nearly 21% cheaper. Not to mention cleaner, reducing Cayman’s energy dependence blah blah.
I don’t know about you but I could really do with a 21% reduction in my CUC bill about now..
EXPAND THE CORE PROGRAM!
and what would you expect them to say exactly? There is nothing that helps CUC’s bottom line in CORE. They have ZERO reasons to speak highly of it.
what on earth are you on serum?
The Payroll. 😉
Simply not true.
They have said it yes. It is self serving though and always remember that. But they have also said that now with the cost of diesel as it is is the only reason CORE was allowed to be opened up. I.e. It’s cheaper than diesel and thats one of the problems. Look at your bill. Whats the largest cost right now? Solar controls costs, diesel doesn’t. But solar has scared the hell out of CUC for over a decade because its a disruptor. CUC’s WHOLE game is not about costs. Its all about control.
The release is signed by “CREA Board of Directors” but CREA doesn’t have any up to date information on who runs the organization. Aside from James, who makes money from selling the thing he’s lobbying for, it would be helpful to contextualize CREA’s position.
James, any chance you could get an up to date website or provide more info for the “not for profit” that serves as a screen for your “for profit” business positions?
Important Note: CREA meetings are open to everyone in the Cayman Islands save but one entity, CUC. Who the CREA board (all 9 members) unanimously voted to remove as a CREA member for much of the reasons stated in this press release. Thus by default you keep giving away your identity with these comments; fyi not very clever. The reason why CUC specifically don’t have the identity of the board members and anyone in the public can/does is because CUC demanded the contact details of all the board members once notified of their exclusion so CUC could personally contact them to protest your exclusion from CREA’s meetings, instead of the proper route CUC were given which was to write to the CREA Board and have them reconsider the matter if CUC were able to make a compelling case as to why they would be an asset and not a liability to the association, an option CUC refused to take. So in your attempt at spin here, you should at least try come across as somewhat balanced and credible.
So I have to join CREA to find out who runs it? Loving this cloak and dagger – when’s the next meeting? Do I knock three times?
You have got to be kidding… CREA is not willing to name your other board members?
Also, if I’m reading your comment correctly that all 9 “members” of CREA are the board, that means “CREA” is made up of 9 people in total. Should the public not have the right to know who those 9 people are and what their commercial interests are to be able to consider those factors in assessing your position? You are a lobbying group. And you have an agenda. Which is perfectly fine. But you need to be transparent about that. Reasonable people can disagree about what is important and how to best balance competing interests.
Surely you understand that it’s not a good look if all “CREA” members financially benefit from a high CORE rate? And that if we only ever hear you (James) speaking on behalf of CREA it can seem like your non-profit is a shield for your commercial interests to appear pure and in everyone’s best interest?
I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in the past, but this rant of a statement and your comments on this article are really leading me to reconsider how objective you really are.
For a non-engineer the CREA chairman seems to have a lot of opinions. As a non-solar producing consumer, I have a question for him.
If CUC allows as much roof-top solar generation as he/CREA wishes and the grid becomes unstable as CUC indicates, can the consumers affected come to his house to live/work until each instance of instability is resolved? I am presuming that his home has solar with battery capacity/generator to instantly cover the instability.
As a consumer I feel better relying on CUC (engineers) to allow solar power production into our grid at a pace that is reliable. Yes, I will continue to pay a bit more in the near term, but I prefer that to black-outs when the solar production is not up to the demand.
CUC said solar was costing $2m more per year. You mean the company that doesn’t want solar uptake because their revenues are based on return on investment. As more solar is installed at the expense of homeowners/business this reduces the requirement for capital investment from CUC so their revenue drops…
So let’s look at those numbers Truth Serum..
The latest CORE release pays either $0.175 or $0.15 per kwh depending on the size of the installation. For the sake of argument let’s assume an average price of $0.1625
https://caymannewsservice.com/2023/02/cuc-opens-grid-for-another-3mw-of-renewables/
CUC charge in the region of $0.37kwh to residential users (look at your bill)
About $0.24 kwh of this cost of fuel (gov’t fuel duty + fuel cost) meaning that CUC’s effective revenue per kwh is around $0.13 kwh
By adding this margin $0.13 kwh back to the latest CORE price average of $0.1625 you get to about $0.2925 per kwh much lower than the $0.37 currently being charged, in fact nearly 21% cheaper. Not to mention cleaner, reducing Cayman’s energy dependence blah blah.
I don’t know about you but I could really do with a 21% reduction in my CUC bill about now..
EXPAND THE CORE PROGRAM!
Yes. Well said CUC Chairman.
Sounds like you work for CUC! Ask the engineers if its possible to put roof top solar without instability. Or perhaps ask engineers outside of Cayman who will give you a more accurate picture. We have less than 2% roof top solar for goodness sake. This is nonsense. Purely a delay tactic and this whole game for them is about control and protection of profits. One day its because of costs then grid instability but ultimtaely its all about control. They are old paradigm thinkers.
Definitely not an engineer but luckily that doesn’t negate the fact that anyone can read an engineering report done from 2017 that proves 29MWs could be added to the CUC grid without causing grid instability and it was always merely a discussion of cost/benefit in doing so. This despite CUC claiming that the grid would become unstable if passing 17MWs…. Then it was 18, then 19 then, 20 then 23 and now finally this year admitting (for the first time) that indeed it can handle 29MW… as the 2017 report stated but not after stopping and starting these solar programs for months and years on an erroneous basis.
https://www.cuc-cayman.com/renewable-energy/interim-renewable-infusion-study-report/
Perhaps CUC engineers can explain why we can point to other countries, including those with similar grids, that have far higher rates of solar on their grid than CUC’s 3% (2% comes from rooftop) while others have 20%,30%, 40% and more while being stable and solar world leaders like Hawaii have 51% of all their solar energy coming from rooftops which due to scale is now compared in cost of utility scale solar? 🤔 Yet you are here arguing that at 2% after more than a decade Cayman needs to panic about grid stability and anyone who shows otherwise aren’t credible because they aren’t engineers. FYI — Non engineers can read too. 👍
Put Dart in charge of it. Sister Island s to be demonstration project
Time to take a stand and boycott CUC and it’s CEO time for competition to come here and help us all.
CUC doesn’t make it easy for adopters and OfReg take a hands-off view to their enforcement of net zero obligations and stated energy transition targets. People need to be fired, but are instead promoted.