Archive for June, 2011

NY SREC market put on hold

Posted June 28th, 2011 by SRECTrade.

The New York State Assembly’s session ended on Friday, June 24th without the passing of the New York Solar Industry and Jobs Act, which would have established an SREC market in New York beginning in 2013. The bill is the assembly’s latest iteration of State Senate Bill S.4178A, which we covered in a blog post in May. Since then, the bill has received several edits:

*The compliance schedule for the implementation of solar has changed, with the first year’s targets reduced from a .33% solar requirement to a .15% requirement. The 2020 target of 1.5% solar has remained unchanged.

*The original $300 price floor for state-sponsored SREC sales has been removed, and SRECs will simply expire after 2 years.

*A multiplier making SRECs generated within a utility’s distribution region worth 1.5 the value of SRECs generated outside the distribution region was added.

Unfortunately, this important legislation will not be able to be addressed until the start of the 2012 session. Until then, the prospect of a NY SREC market has been put on hold.

Connecticut solar bill adds new twist to the SREC concept

Posted June 23rd, 2011 by SRECTrade.

On June 17th, Connecticut passed legislation that consolidates the development and implementation of Connecticut’s environmental and energy policy within a new, expanded Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). Although it is still waiting to be signed by the governor, signs point towards approval as he has spoken out in support of the bill.  The bill will affect the solar market on two different levels: residential solar production and commercial facilities less than one megawatt.  The original bill known as “Bill 1243” can be found here ( ) (see section 106-108) and a summary of the Bill can be found here ( (see page 4 of the summary of the effects of the residential portion of this bill).


The new Residential Solar Program mentioned in the bill requires the Clean Energy Finance Authority (CEFIA) to create a solar investment program that will produce a minimum of 30 megawatts by the end of 2022, a relatively modest goal, but it is specific to residential solar.

In order to achieve this goal of 30 megawatts by 2022, the CEFIA will offer panel owners the choice between a performance-based incentive or a one-time upfront incentive based on estimated future system performance, known as expected performance-based buydowns.  The actual amount received by panel owners from these incentives will be determined on an individual basis and, if panel owners elect to receive these one-time upfront incentives, panel owners will forfeit the credits they earn from excess energy production.

This expected performance-based buy down program will encourage the buying and installation of new solar panels, but does not set the groundwork for a traditional SREC market. Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), enacted in 1998, mandates that a percentage of retail electricity be renewable, of which a portion is required to be Class 1 (i.e. solar, wind etc.).  These new incentives in combination with low Alternative Compliance Payments (ACP) will result in prices remaining below $55 per REC in the Connecticut market in the future.

In summary, there are three main takeaways from the portion of the new legislation that effects residential solar:

1. There was a “pro-solar” bill passed
2. It’s goals are modest relative to other states
3. The bill doesn’t create a viable SREC “market”

Commercial/Distributed REC Program

The bill also lays out a program that will require energy distribution companies (EDCs) to spend a given amount of money to buy RECs from renewable energy facilities under 1 MW. This is essentially geared towards distributed solar since wind and hydro projects below 1 MW are not as common as for solar. Therefore, we’ll refer to them as “SRECs” for now. According to the bill, electric distribution companies must solicit 15-year SREC contracts from qualified facilities, spending $8M in the first year. Each year thereafter, for the first 4 years of the program, the EDCs must add $8M in annual expenditures through additional solicitations for 15-year SREC contracts. This essentially means that the program will double in size for each of the first 4 years.

At the end of these initial 4 years there are two possibilities: either a) the costs of the relevant technologies have been reduced, or b) the costs have not been reduced.

a)     If the cost of technologies have been reduced (determined by PURA), electric distribution companies will be required to continue the eight million dollar increase in spending per year in years five and six. In years seven through fifteen, the required spending will remain at 48 million per year and will decrease by eight million dollars in years sixteen through twenty-one (as the contracts signed in years 1-4 roll off).

b)    If the cost of technologies haven’t been reduced, electric distribution companies will be required to continue to spend thirty-two million dollars per year in years five through thirteen. In years fourteen through nineteen the required expenditure will decline by eight million dollars per year.

Essentially what this means is that the program will either peak in year 4 and remain at a high of $32M in annual REC purchases or it will be expanded after year 4 to a peak of $48M.

The obligation for electric distributors to buy these RECs will be determined based on the size of their respective distribution system loads and the price of each of these RECs will be capped by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) at $350 per REC.  In addition, PURA retains the ability to reduce this price ceiling by 3-7% per year based on a comparison with actual bid prices from the annual solicitation of contracts and foreseeable reductions in the cost of technologies.

These solicitation plans required of the EDCs will be broken down into three separate categories by facility size: under 100kW, 100-250kW, and 250-1000kW. Systems less than 100kW do not need to participate in the solicitations, but will be eligible to receive a price per REC equal to 10% more than the weighted average in the competitive solicitations for projects in the 100-250 kW range. All systems larger than 100 kW will use a competitive solicitation run by the EDCs and focused on getting the most out of the $8M required to be spent.

For example, if the EDC is required to spend $500,000 a year on the program:
$500,000 / $300 per REC / 1200 = 1.39 MW can be installed

If the price is “bid down” to $200:
$500,000 / $200 per REC / 1200 = 2.08 MW can be installed

As the price gets bid down by producers who are willing to sell their SRECs for less than other producers, the percentage of the EDC’s energy production that is Class I renewable will increase (assuming their overall distribution remains roughly the same).

Finally, if EDCs fall short of spending the required amount of money, they will be forced to make a non-compliance payment of 125% of the difference between what was required and what was spent.

What Happened to the North Carolina SREC Market?

Posted June 23rd, 2011 by SRECTrade.

Since its inception last summer, the North Carolina SREC market has not materialized into the type of market seen in other states like New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts. There are several factors lending to the stagnation of this market, many of which were covered in our blog post “Where is the NC SREC Market?” published last August. Since then, the nascent NC market has continued to dwindle. Most small solar facilities in North Carolina have been selling their SRECs into the DC market, an opportunity that will be closing as new legislation in DC shuts the market to out-of-state facilities.

A few factors  impair the viability of the North Carolina market:

1) The absence of both an SACP and transparent market prices make it difficult for projects to find viable SREC-based financing.

2) There is a shortage of buyers. The two main buyers, Duke Energy and Progress Energy, which serve 65% of NC utility customers and provide 71% of the state’s electricity, have both met their NC REPS compliance needs for solar, with Progress locking out SRECs until 2014 and Duke having ample supply through 2018, the final year of RPS compliance.

3) North Carolina accepts 25% of its SRECs from out of state sited facilities.

In an effort to curb these seemingly premature accomplishments by utilities, legislators in North Carolina introduced two important clean energy bills in the last few months: the Solar Jobs Bill (HB495/SB473) and the Energy Independence and Job Creation Bill (SB694). The former aspired to increase the solar requirement for utilities from .2% to .4% of retail electric sales by 2018 in an effort to further develop the state’s solar industry, while also requiring that no more than 12.5% of the RECs applied towards the RPS requirements come from out-of-state generators. If this bill were to pass, it would help catalyze an NC SREC market as utilities would need to find additional sources of SRECs to meet new compliance targets. To create more flexibility, the Energy Independence and Job Creation Bill allowed for “third party sales” of renewable energy, or the ability for facilities with third-party owned renewable systems to buy electricity directly from the third-party without classifying them as utilities, so long as their capacity is under 2 MW. This bill would open the North Carolina market up to third-party financing companies like SunRun, SolarCity and Sungevity, which would foster the development of solar leasing and PPAs.

Unfortunately, neither of these bills were taken up by legislators by the crossover deadline on June 9th, effectively rendering them dead until the start of the 2013 session. For now, the future remains unclear for a more active SREC market in North Carolina.

Additional Resources:

Relevant Utility Rebates

NC Sustainable Energy Association – legislative news

NC GreenPower – non-profit created by the NC Utilities Commission

New Jersey falls short of 2011 SREC target

Posted June 22nd, 2011 by SRECTrade.

The New Jersey SREC program runs on a June 1 to May 31 Energy Year (EY), referred to by the year in which it ends. EY2011 concluded last month on May 31, 2011. The final EY2011 SRECs will be minted for May 2011 generation beginning next week, commencing the end of year true up period. Load-Serving Entities will have until the end of September to finalize their purchases to meet state requirements. Though most of the remaining 2011 SRECs will be sold in the July auction, SRECTrade will continue to host auctions for remaining EY2011 SRECs in August and September. Given the shortage of EY2011 SRECs, prices should remain high, trading near the $640 mark that has cleared throughout the year.

According to the BPU, as of April 30, 2011, there was 330 MW of solar installed in the state. Due to interconnection and other delays, by the end of May, the actual number of solar facilities that were active in the SREC market was 310 MW. A common misperception in the SREC market relates to how supply and demand interact. Since there was a 255 MW requirement in New Jersey for 2011, it would appear that the state would experience an oversupply of SRECs having achieved 310 MW by the end of EY2011. In fact, New Jersey will fall short of its SREC requirement by approximately 40,000 SRECs. Here’s how we arrive at that number:

The New Jersey RPS requires a fixed number of SRECs each year:
EY2011 RPS Requirement = 306,000 SRECs or MWhs

The common annual production factor used in New Jersey is 1200 MWh per MW of installed capacity:
306,000 MWh / 1200 = 255 MW of required capacity

It is important to keep in mind that this is the capacity required to be running on average throughout the year. At the beginning of EY2011, on June 1, 2010, there was 133 MW of solar installed and active. Using the 310 MW installed and active at the end of the year, we can estimate the average capacity:
EY2011 Average Active Solar Capacity: (133 MW + 310 MW) / 2 = 222 MW

Converting back into SRECs, we can estimate the number of SRECs produced through EY2011:
222 MW * 1200 = 266,000 MWhs or SRECs

With this estimate, we can calculate the shortfall in New Jersey for EY2011:
306,000 SRECs required – 266,000 SRECs projected = 40,000 SREC shortfall

This is the same number projected by the BPU in the April report on the status of the SREC program. This should be good news for market participants with EY2011 SRECs, however, this is only a 13% shortfall and as the compliance period comes to an end in September, it is unclear if outside factors may influence pricing as the year closes out. For example, some buyers may opt to pay the SACP instead of procuring SRECs in the market. In other cases, prices may be influenced by oversupply concerns and falling prices for EY2012. With 310 MW active as a starting point and a 368 MW requirement for EY2012, the picture is not as bright for the future of New Jersey’s SREC market. A potential 2012 oversupply will most likely drive prices down in August when the first 2012 SRECs are created for June generation.

With 3 months left for buyers to procure EY2011 SRECs, it is unclear if market prices will finish the year on a strong note despite the under-supply.

DC SREC Market Amendment – Update

Posted June 15th, 2011 by SRECTrade.

On June 7, 2011, the Council of the District of Columbia read and reviewed the latest draft of Bill 19-10, also known as the Distributed Generation Amendment Act of 2011.  For the details of the pending amendment please click here. The amendment received a substantial support from the local legislators as well as the DC solar community. The final vote after the first reading was 14-0, unanimously in favor of putting the amendment into effect.

As it currently stands, below are the key points of the amendment under consideration:

– Solar thermal system eligibility to participate in the SREC market. For more info see this post.

– Implementation of new solar capacity requirements and a new solar alternative compliance payment (SACP) schedule:

Year Current RPS Solar Requirement Proposed RPS Solar Requirement Jan-11 Proposed RPS Solar Requirement June-11 Current SACP Proposed SACP June-11
2011 0.04% 0.25% 0.40% $500 $500
2012 0.07% 0.50% 0.50% $500 $500
2013 0.10% 0.75% 0.50% $500 $500
2014 0.13% 1.00% 0.60% $500 $500
2015 0.17% 1.25% 0.70% $500 $500
2016 0.21% 1.50% 0.825% $500 $500
2017 0.25% 1.75% 0.98% $500 $350
2018 0.30% 2.00% 1.15% $500 $300
2019 0.35% 2.25% 1.35% $500 $200
2020 0.40% 2.50% 1.58% $500 $200
2021 1.85% $150
2022 2.175% $150
2023 2.50% $50

The amendment puts it place a system size cap, stating that all solar requirements be met by acquiring SRECs from systems no larger than 5 MW. Additionally, the amendment requires systems to be sited within the District. For systems located outside of the District, the amendment plans to grandfather systems smaller than 5 MW in capacity that were registered as a renewable resource with the District prior to January 31, 2011.

As mentioned in our previous blog post on this potential change to the District’s existing RPS law, this bill will take very important, concrete steps to addressing the current oversupply in the DC market.

It is still unclear how the grandfather date of 1/31/2011 will affect facilities outside the district that have been registered by the DC Public Services Commission and issued SRECs since then.

As the District is still operating under the current RPS law, out-of-state systems are still eligible to be certified for SREC generation, but it is unknown if the registration will hold value considering the implications of the amendment. The DC Council website does not currently indicate the next date for further consideration, but SRECTrade will continue to provide additional information as it becomes available.

New Jersey Energy Master Plan Myths

Posted June 14th, 2011 by SRECTrade.

Governor Christie’s Energy Master Plan (EMP), released last week, is a document published every 3 years that lays out the energy agenda for the Christie administration. The plan itself has no impact on the existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in New Jersey. Any changes to the RPS would need to come from the legislative branch since the SREC program has been written into law. That said, the EMP could begin to influence the general thinking in the state, which could be cause for concern given that some of the conclusions are inaccurate. Here are some ideas that have been suggested in the EMP that need to be challenged:

Myth 1. Solar may be too costly and needs to be reigned in by a cost-benefit test

The general theme of Christie’s view on solar is concern over the impact on electricity costs of the SREC program. To that point, the EMP suggests that the SREC program be subjected to a cost-benefit test. Prior to 2010, the program had a cap on the cost to ratepayers that was removed by the legislature in the NJ Solar Energy Advancement and Fair Competition Act. The removal of the cap was likely intended to bring more stability to the SREC market which would face a collapse if the cost threshold were reached, making it very difficult to finance projects with such a wildcard in play. Since the 2010 Act, solar installation in New Jersey has soared and the state is on target to reach its aggressive solar goals in 2012. One of the more concerning assertions in the EMP is the cost that solar has had on the ratepayer. A recent Op Ed on by R. William Potter, reaches different conclusions based on the information provided in the EMP. According to Potter, the data shows that the solar program has been a bargain for the state of New Jersey.

Myth 2. The SACP in New Jersey is higher than other states and should be lowered

Figure 38 compares the New Jersey SACP (Solar Alternative Compliance Payment), effectively the ceiling price for SRECs in New Jersey, to those in other states. What it fails to mention is that other states also offer additional upfront rebates and incentives that New Jersey has intentionally moved away from in favor of a greater dependence on SRECs. The elimination of upfront incentives was coupled with an increase in the SACP in 2009 so that SRECs could carry solar projects in New Jersey. This is a key reason why the SREC market in New Jersey has been stable, while other markets, like Pennsylvania, have faltered. Unlike other SREC markets, New Jersey relies entirely on SRECs. There’s no rebate + SREC combination in New Jersey. This means that a project is highly sensitive to SREC financing in the state, whereas in other states, with lower SREC values, the economics aren’t as dependent on the SREC values, and the markets have become unstable due to an influx of projects built with little regard for what the SREC market is doing.

Myth 3. SREC prices are trending upwards, while the cost of solar comes down

Another entirely inaccurate assessment of the data provided in the EMP plan comes in Figures 39 and 40 on page 91 of the document. Historical SREC prices quoted by the New Jersey Office of Clean Energy are displayed, demonstrating an increase in SREC prices over time, while Figure 40 shows that the cost of solar has come down over time, drawing the conclusion that the SREC markets aren’t tracking with the economics of solar. For starters, the data they point to from the Office of Clean Energy is flawed, leading to these incorrect conclusions. The data is pulled from the prices self-reported in GATS each time an SREC is transferred. The problem is that many SREC transfers represent contracts that were signed years ago. If you installed a solar system in 2008 and entered into a 3-year contract, the price was likely around $100-$150 per SREC at that time, when the SACP was $300 (and there was a generous upfront rebate). 3 years, later, you are still transferring your SRECs over at $100-$150 per SREC in an SREC-only market where prices are now trading at $650 per SREC. These legacy contracts have weighed down the average SREC prices over the past 3 years, but as they expire, new contracts will be signed with the post-2009 SACP schedule in place. The average prices published by the New Jersey Office of Clean Energy will naturally rise until the final legacy contract expires. Until then, any conclusions drawn based on the increase in the average price will be terribly flawed.

The EMP’s understanding of SRECs would likely have been more informed if it were published in 2012. Now that New Jersey is finally catching up to its solar goals (and most legacy contracts are expiring), average SREC prices will begin dropping soon. If you were to review historical NJ SREC prices on, you will see a step down each year as the SACP is lowered. Prices remained in alignment with the SACP because of a significant shortage of solar and SRECs. In 2012, we will likely see the market transform into a competitive market, based on the cost of solar, and not on the SACP. This is because, for the first time in a few years, there is an end in sight to the shortage and the market will soon begin acting as a market.

Establishing the new SACP:

In 2010, the solar Act called for an extension of the SACP through 2026. It is currently scheduled through the 2016 Energy Year, and cannot be lowered without legislative action. In addition, the law currently states that the BPU must extend the schedule through 2026. The EMP softly suggests a 20% reduction in 2016 followed by a 2.54% reduction moving forward. Ultimately the BPU will decide what the schedule should be, but it shouldn’t make a decision based on the analysis put forth in the EMP. There is limited downside to keeping the SACP high, since it will only factor into SREC prices when utilities fail to meet their goals (the case in 2009-2011). If the SREC market acts as it should, when supply is up and the state is reaching its goals (starting in 2012), the SACP should be a non-factor. However, if the SACP is set too low, SRECs will not be enough to finance solar, stifling growth and compromising the “competitive market” aspect of what makes the SREC program such a powerful force in making New Jersey the 2nd largest solar industry in the U.S. There’s no reason not to extend the SACP at the current rate of a 2.5% annual reduction through 2026, remaining consistent with the precedent.

NJ 2011 Energy Master Plan – Solar RPS on Track

Posted June 10th, 2011 by SRECTrade.

On June 7, 2011, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced the issuance of the state’s draft of the 2011 Energy Master Plan (EMP). By way of background, the EMP is a road map describing the energy goals of the state’s executive branch. The plan is required to be issued and updated every 3 years.  For details of the 2011 draft please click here. For details on the 2008 EMP click here.

Overall, the report outlines the continued implementation of the NJ Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) solar carve-out. As the report stands, there is no commentary made that would indicate a substantial change to the existing program. The following provides more insight into the aspects of the report that touch specifically on the RPS solar requirements.

The currently legislated RPS target in New Jersey is 22.5%. Of the several goals set forth in 2008 EMP, one sought to surpass this RPS target by achieving 30% of the state’s electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020. The recently released 2011 Draft EMP lays out 5 goals, one of which is to “Maintain support for the renewable energy portfolio standard of 22.5% of energy from renewable sources by 2021.”

The 2011 Draft EMP demonstrates support for behind-the-meter PV installations, highlighting solar’s ability to achieve reduction in carbon emissions and supporting a solar industry in the state,  while also taking into consideration the cost associated with solar incentives to ratepayers. The document does not call for a reduction in the existing solar carve-out, but does indicate the following,

“As the all-in capital costs for diverse solar technologies continue to decline, the Board should take action to reduce the SACP through 2025.  Doing so will not undermine new solar projects that are worthwhile, but will reasonably minimize the cost burden borne by nonparticipants.”

The Christie administration explains the benefit of larger scale solar projects while noting that they “…should be considered in addition to, not in lieu of, smaller-scale, grid-connected applications.”

The document highlights the fixed SREC requirements implemented by the Solar Energy Advancement and Fair Competition Act (SEAFCA) introduced in January 2010. Instead of a percentage-based solar requirement, this act insulated the requirement from fluctuating electricity usage by implementing targets in fixed gigawatt-hour terms. This proves beneficial, as part of New Jersey’s energy goals include demand response and energy efficiency initiatives that plan to reduce overall electricity usage.

Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP):

1) The current SACP extends through 2016; the SEAFCA requires the BPU to set the schedule through 2026.

2) No time frame is required, but industry stakeholders suggest the implementation of a schedule to provide certainty to debt and equity investors enabling solar development.

EMP Policy Direction and Recommendations regarding the solar carve-out are as follows:

1) Reduce the SACP: One proposal recommends the reduction of the SACP by 20% in 2016 and 2.54% each year thereafter.

2) Subject Solar Renewable Incentives to a Cost Benefit Test: The EMP mentions, “Solar generation can contribute to the reliability of the grid…” and continues by stating, “…subsidies should enhance job growth and retention objectives and should contribute to reduction in taxes without inadvertently transferring wealth from non-participants to participants throughout New Jersey.”

3) Promote Solar PV Installations that Provide Economic and Environmental Benefit: Support for community solar power is encouraged, allowing economies of scale to give residents access to what otherwise could be an expensive individual solar system. Community solar projects help provide decreased electricity usage through the local utility and can spread the cost of distribution system upgrades among the ownership group.

Overall, the 2011 Draft Energy Master Plan lays out the goals for a diversified mix of energy sources throughout the state of New Jersey. The existing overall RPS targets and specific solar carve-out requirements appear to be a priority of the Christie administration. It is clear that the Governor’s office is focused on reducing the economic impact of implementing the RPS while enhancing electricity security and job creation. The EMP has no substantive proposals that should cause concern for stakeholders participating in the state’s SREC market, but at the same time does not include any discussion of expanding New Jersey’s solar goals to continue adoption beyond the current targets.

Maintain support for the renewable energy portfolio standard of 22.5% of energy
from renewable sources by 2021.

MA DOER Updates Retroactive SREC Rules

Posted June 1st, 2011 by SRECTrade.

The DOER announced today that they will no longer be awarding retroactive credit for SRECs from generation prior to the current SREC generation period.

In simplified form, this change means that installers and system owners should get their EasyREC paperwork in as soon as their system is interconnected to the electric grid. By submitting immediately, the the DOER and MassCEC will have ample time to approve the system. Even for systems that go online at the end of Q1 (i.e. March 20th), the state will then have a full 3 months to get the system certified for Q1 SRECs on July 15th.

If a system was interconnected in Q1 but is not certified in DOER by July, then it’s first chance to create SRECs will be October 15th. On that date, DOER will only create Q2 SRECs, and will ignore any Q1 SRECs that would have been generated for the system on July 15th.

All recent applications to SRECTrade’s EasyREC service have already been submitted to DOER on the customer’s behalf, and thus are not going to be affected by this change. Feel free to follow up with us, though, if you would like to double-check your status.

If your system went online before March 31, 2011 and you have not yet submitted your application, go to our EasyREC page and fill out the forms as soon as possible!

Solar Capacity in the SREC States – May 2011

Posted June 1st, 2011 by SRECTrade.

SRECTrade SREC Markets Report: May 2011

The following post outlines the megawatts of solar capacity certified and/or registered to create SRECs in the SREC markets SRECTrade currently serves.

May 2011 Updated JPEG

PJM Eligible Systems

As of the end of May, there were 15,480 solar PV (15,203) and solar thermal (277) systems registered and eligible to create SRECs in the PJM Generation Attribute Tracking System (GATS) registry. Of these eligible systems, 59 (0.38%) have a nameplate capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, of which only 3 systems are greater than 5 MW. The largest system, currently located in New Jersey, is 18.3 MW,  and the second largest, located in Ohio is 12 MW. The third largest system, is located in IL and eligible for the MD, PA, and DC SREC markets, is 10 MW.

Massachusetts DOER Qualified Projects

As of May 6, 2011, there were 524 MA DOER qualified solar projects; 467 operational and 57 not operational. Of these qualified systems, 11 (2.1%) have a nameplate capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, of which only 3 are between 1.5 and 2 MW. Three of the projects greater than 1 MW are currently operational.

Capacity Summary By State

The tables above demonstrate the capacity breakout by state. Note, that for all PJM GATS registered projects, each state includes all projects certified to sell into that state. State RPS programs that allow for systems sited in other states to participate have been broken up by systems sited in state and out of state. Additional detail has been provided to demonstrate the total capacity of systems only certified for one specific state market versus being certified for multiple state markets. For example, PA includes projects only certified to sell into the PA SREC market, broken out by in state and out of state systems, as well as projects that are also certified to sell into PA and Other State markets broken out by in state and out of state systems (i.e. OH, DC, MD, DE, NJ). PA Out of State includes systems sited in states with their own state SREC market (i.e. DE) as well as systems sited in states that have no SREC market (i.e. VA). Also, it is important to note that the Current Capacity represents the total megawatts eligible to produce and sell SRECs as of the noted date, while the Estimated Required Capacity – Current and Next Reporting Year represents the estimated number of MW that need to be online on average throughout the reporting period to meet the RPS requirement within each state. For example, New Jersey needs approximately 255 MW online for the entire 2011 reporting year to meet the RPS requirement. Additionally, the data presented above does not include projects that are in the pipeline or currently going through the registration process in each state program. This data represents specifically the projects that have been approved for the corresponding state SREC markets as of the dates noted.