Author

The Vote Solar Initiative

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Wisconsin Offers a Good Example of Bad Solar Rate Design

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

This month, the Wisconsin PSC voted two to one to approve fairly drastic rate change proposals from We Energies that will make it more difficult and expensive for customers to go solar. The proposed changes, approved without apparent modification, include:

Increasing the monthly flat customer charge by 66%;
Dramatically reducing the compensation for any excess electricity that a solar customer sends back to the grid; and
Imposing a significant charge to customers that invest in their own solar generating systems

This is a good example of electric rate design gone bad. WE asked the Commission for approval to increase its $9.66 per month customer charge to $16, among the highest in the nation. This fixed fee remains the same no matter how much energy a customer does or doesn’t use – whether that’s the result of conservation or self-generation through solar. So now WE Energies has a high fixed fee that does nothing to encourage efficient energy consumption, meanwhile, the price of electricity itself from WE Energies is low. Message to consumers? – energy is cheap, use lots of it!

Specific to solar customers, WE will now also be severely undervaluing solar energy that they deliver to the grid. A 2009 study of that WE itself commissioned found that distributed solar generation is worth about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, but the newly-approved marginal rate proposal allows WE to pay customers just 20% of that value. 20%!!. A far cry from fair compensation for their valuable distributed clean energy.

To make matters worse, WE proposed to charge solar customers $3.79 for every kW of solar installed each month. A customer that installs a 5 kW system will be forced to pay almost $230 more every year. Even customers that consume 100% of their generation on site and never send any electricity back to the grid are hit with this charge. Unsurprisingly, the utility was unable to demonstrate any increased cost imposed by solar for which this discriminatory charge was necessary.

Let’s be clear. Wisconsin has all of 300 solar customers, producing about 3/100ths of one percent of WE’s sales – hardly enough to present a real threat to WE Energies cost recovery. Yet now, WE Energies will be allowed to charge solar customers well beyond what it costs to serve them. These rate changes effectively prop up government regulated monopoly utilities against those few customers that attempt to make the only real choice they have in the electricity market – investing their own hard-earned money into generating their own power.

Rate design is complex, changing and has a tremendous impact on consumer solar investment. It’s not easy to get right (although WE Energies failed to do so with particular aplomb), but it’s oh so important to do so. To that end, we worked with Environment America, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Greenpeace, Pace Energy and Climate Center, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center to identify six guiding principles that ensure fairness for all customers during this significant transition in our electricity infrastructure. We encourage policymakers and stakeholders to adhere to these principles of sound electric rate design.

November 24, 2014 0 comment

Will California Protect Customers’ Right to Self-Generate?

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Should you be able to reduce the amount of energy you buy from your utility by generating your own power? Or does a utility have the right to demand that you buy all your power from them, even if you have a solar system on your roof?

This question is at the heart of California’s new proceeding to determine the future of net metering in the state. In comments to the California Public Utilities Commission in October, California’s three big investor-owned utilities argue that net metering should be unavailable to new customers after the current 5% program cap is reached, and that customers should have to move to a ‘buy all-sell all’ feed-in tariff (FiT) instead. Customers who want to go solar after 2016, the utilities argue, should no longer be allowed under state law to reduce the utility-generated energy they buy by generating their own renewable energy onsite. Instead, they want their customers to have to buy all the electricity they use from the utility, and sell all their onsite renewable generation back to the utility at a pre-determined price.

What price, you ask? Well, the utilities are all over the map on that one.

PG&E proposes the FiT price should vary by technology and should be set at “the avoided cost of the energy minus any costs incurred accommodating the generation that are not paid by the participating customer” (this would equal approximately 4 cents/kWh, minus integration costs). PG&E proposes an adder could be included if needed to allow continued growth of rooftop solar, with that adder declining over time.
SDG&E proposes that the FiT price should vary by technology like PG&E, but argues the price should be set based on production cost, rather than on the value of the energy to the rest of the system. (SDG&E follows up by proposing yet another alternative for determining the price: that it be based on the competitively-set ReMAT price already being used for systems of 1-3 MW.)
So Cal Edison agrees with PG&E that “the FiT rate should be based on market price benchmarks in the wholesale energy markets, such as the CAISO’s default load aggregation point (DLAP) prices” but says the price should not vary by technology and doesn’t suggest an adder to go on top of the short-run energy-only price.

We see some significant problems here. Foremost among them is that throwing out net metering and replacing it with a ‘buy all-sell all’ arrangement would be at odds with Americans’ fundamental right to self-generation. Net metering allows customers to first meet their own electricity needs with the clean energy they generate, and then receive full retail credit on their utility bill for excess electricity they send back to the grid. In California, about two thirds of the power generated from net metered systems is currently used by customers onsite. A FiT is something else entirely – the utility credits customers for all of their solar power production at a set price. In this situation, solar customers are no longer self-generators empowered to use their solar energy to primarily reduce their own load. They instead become power producers that must send all of their power to the utility.

A FiT that accurately values the net benefits of rooftop solar generation— fully building in public health, environmental, economic and grid benefits– is a fine option for those who want to be in the business of delivering power to the utilities, but it should be the customer’s choice whether they move to a FiT or choose to primarily use their solar energy onsite as a way of reducing their electricity purchases from the utility. PURPA, a federal law approved by Congress back in 1978, affirms this common-sense customer right to self-determination. (See our earlier blog post if you’d like to read our principles for designing an expanded net metering program, highlighting the importance of the right to self-generate.)

Beyond the issue of customer rights, there are other practical concerns. Arriving at the right FiT price to compensate customer-sited renewables is a difficult and contentious proposition. As outlined above, the utilities’ proposals for how that price should be calculated vary greatly from each other—and none inspire much confidence in reaching proper valuation. In fact, in recent years several CPUC proceedings considered developing value-based renewable procurement programs (AB 1969 expansion, AB 920 implementation, SB 32 implementation), and in each of those proceedings, utilities fought comprehensive valuation of clean energy tooth and nail. And the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association representing all investor-owned utilities in the US, has repeatedly stated its opposition to crediting distributed renewables with any value beyond the short term price of polluting fossil-fuel generation: see Greentech Media articles here and here. Until the monopoly utilities are willing to properly value distributed generation, a policy that secures value for customers by offsetting retail purchases is a much more pragmatic approach.

Net metering is a simple and proven policy tool for supporting self-generation, and has been enormously successful in California. The real issue here is rate design, where solutions are available, as noted in a recent DOE Sunshot paper that proposes three-pronged approach of revenue decoupling, a minimum bill and time-of-use rates that are gradually phased in for all customers. Since the CPUC is set to approve changes to residential rate structures in 2015 that will kick in over the next several years, we simply can’t know yet how the benefits of net metering to all Californians will stack up against costs (though a proper accounting of both sides is very likely to show continued net benefits for everyone). Meanwhile, California remains far from achieving its long-term goals to protect the climate, and we need to expand solar access to more Californians who live in disadvantaged communities. We hope that in 2015, solar supporters all across the state will come together to urge the CPUC take a common sense approach: extend and expand net metering beyond 2016, enabling more Californians to help tackle our collective climate challenge, and to control their own energy future.

November 17, 2014 0 comment

DOE Paper: Keep Calm and Net Meter On

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

The problem is not too much solar. That might seem self-evident, but that is basically what utilities around the country are arguing — and trying to ‘fix.’ As energy users are increasingly turning to solar to generate their own emission-free power, utilities are responding by trying to get rid of net metering, and change rate structures to impose large fixed charges. The outcome? Less solar. We have long argued that the problem is

not too much solar, nor is it net metering, the policy that is helping customers in 43 states choose sunshine as their energy source. Rather, it’s a utility business model (and perhaps a regulatory paradigm) that needs updating. In this vein, The Department of Energy’s Sunshot Program released a useful new document: Rethinking Standby and Fixed Charges: Regulatory and Rate Design Pathways to Deeper Solar PV Cost Reductions The paper makes a lot of arguments that we’ve been making, with the benefit of having a DOE logo to remove the smell of patchouli oil. The CliffsNotes are as follows:

Utility arguments on cost shifts often contain a lot of horsemalarkey. Not only do utilities fail to appropriately credit the benefits of solar, but they cherry-pick arguments about cost-shifting to inappropriately discriminate against net-metered solar users. Common rate design practice is to look at a utility’s cost of serving its customers over one year and divide those costs into two categories: ‘fixed’ long-term investments in infrastructure and the like, and ‘variable’ costs that change according to how much electricity is produced and delivered. This short-term snapshot makes fixed costs appear unavoidable, and – the utilities argue – by reducing their utility bill payments, solar customers are by definition not covering as much of those fixed costs as their non-solar counterparts. But of course individual investment in local generation can reduce the need for both fixed and variable costs over a proper time frame. As the Arizona Residential Utility Customer’s Office noted: “Fixed costs are not fixed forever; every cost is variable given the proper time horizon.” It’s time to start treating distributed generation like it’s going to be around for awhile.
Fixed charges have a ‘disproportionately negative and unduly burdensome impact’ on customers who go solar. Instead, a three-pronged approach of 1) decoupling, 2) bare minimum bill that is only assessed if customers buy little to no utility energy, and 3) time-of-use (TOU) rates, phased in gradually to all customers — should keep everything copacetic (that is, both solve for utilities’ revenue requirements and allow solar customers to get appropriate value for their generation) for a long time to come, at least until customer-sided solar reaches ‘significant plurality’ (20-30%) of utility peak load.

It’s really worth a read.

October 30, 2014 0 comment

Rooftop Solar Financing: Wins, Trends & What Comes Next

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

We hosted a webinar on rooftop solar financing trends. For those of you who missed it, here’s a quick summary.

Brad Klein of the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center gave an overview of the recent Iowa Supreme Court case Eagle Point Solar vs. Iowa Utilities Board. This landmark case resulted in a ruling that sets important precedent for solar power purchase agreements (PPAs) in Iowa and elsewhere. The court found that the solar company providing the PPA did not constitute a public utility, thereby clearing the way for PPA financing to be utilized across Iowa. See Brad’s presentation notes here.

Travis Lowder of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory gave an overview of rooftop solar financing trends nationwide. Our takeaways:

Loans = the hot new thing in residential solar, with Mosaic, RGS Solar, Sungage Financial, SunPower, and SolarCity announcing new offerings.
Third party financing is hitting a plateau and can be expected to decrease in market share as loans and other new financing options gain traction. That said, third party financing will remain the preferred option for some customers.
PACE is Not Dead. $300 million CaliforniaFIRST program is operating in 17 counties, and Renovate America and the HERO program have funded over 10,000 residential projects.
SolarCity held 30% of residential market share in 2013, greater than the next 9 competitors combined.

See Travis’ PowerPoint here.

Our attendees asked some great questions. You can read Brad and Travis’ responses here.

September 30, 2014 0 comment

National Lab Shows Another Year of Double Digit Solar Price Reduction

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

We work to make solar more affordable and more accessible to more Americans, and today we’re celebrating another marker on the path to success. According to a new study released this week by the research gurus at Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the cost of going solar in the United States continued its rapid decline in 2013 and the first half of this year. We teamed up with our partners at SEIA to celebrate this progress.

“In just a few years, American ingenuity and smart policy have made solar a true success story. These price declines mean that solar power is now an affordable option for families, schools, businesses and utilities alike,” said our executive director Adam Browning. “The result is that solar and its many grid, economic and environmental benefits are shining in communities across the country.”

“This report highlights yet another reason why solar energy has become such a remarkable American success story. Today, solar provides 143,000 good-paying jobs nationwide, pumps nearly $15 billion a year into the U.S. economy and is helping to significantly reduce pollution,” said SEIA president and CEO Rhone Resch. “There are now more than half a million American homes, businesses and schools with installed solar, and this is good news for freedom of energy choice as well as for our environment.”

This is the seventh edition of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s “Tracking the Sun,” an annual report on solar photovoltaic (PV) costs in the U.S. This year’s report examined more than 300,000 PV systems installed between 1998 and 2013 and preliminary data from the first half of 2014. Key findings include:

Installed prices continued their significant decline in 2013, falling year-over-year by 12-15% depending on system size.
Partial data for the first six months of 2014 indicate that installed prices have continued to fall, with the median installed price of projects tracked in the nation’s largest solar market, California, declining by an additional 6-11% depending on system size.
Solar installed costs declined even as PV modules pricing remained relatively steady, indicating success in efforts targeting non-module soft costs – which include marketing and customer acquisition, system design, installation labor, and the various costs associated with permitting and inspections.
Cash incentives provided through state and utility PV incentive programs (i.e., rebates and performance based incentives) have fallen by 85% to 95% since their peak a decade ago.

Galen Barbose, one of the report’s authors at LBNL, notes that these findings mark the fourth consecutive year of significant cost reductions for the U.S. solar industry. And WE note that, it’s truly inspiring to see how far solar has come in the years since his team released the first Tracking the Sun report just seven years ago. Low costs have driven adoption, which in turn brought costs down further in a virtuous cycle of tremendous solar growth. Today, solar is the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in the United States, employing 143,000 Americans, pumping $15 billion a year into the U.S. economy and helping to reduce pollution. Solar is helping drive a quiet energy revolution that puts customers in charge of their power supply and energy bills like never before. It’s awesome, and the real transformation is yet to come. Let’s do this!

September 19, 2014 0 comment

U.S. Solar Market Steaming Ahead

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

No summer doldrums here. According to last week’s market report from SEIA and GTM Research, the U.S. is now on track to install three times more solar installed this year than just three years ago. There is already enough solar on American rooftops and lands to power more than 3.2 million homes – and that number is rising daily. In other words, the sun has been working hard . . . and so have we. Here’s a quick update of recent developments.

East Coast rising

California may think it’s all-that-and-a-bag-of-sunchips, but frankly, some of the most interesting things in the solar world are happening on the East Coast.

New York is fundamentally re-imagining its grid with distributed generation at the center. After a 5 year campaign, NY Sun, a $1 billion / 3 gigawatt solar program, was finally approved. The NY Public Service Commission is now leading an effort, called ‘Reforming the Energy Vision’ (REV) to restructure the utility business model to harness the benefits of DG.

Georgia is defying the coal-state narrative by launching 900 MW of solar by 2016, all below avoided cost.

Massachusetts came close to a long-term policy compromise that would have completely removed net metering caps, but instead passed a bill that provided short-term relief and set up multiple study/workshop processes.

Vermont raised the state’s net metering cap from 4% of utility peak load to a whopping 15% … and did so with the support of the state’s utilities. Awesome.

It’s exciting to be a part of so much change. What a great time to be alive, eh?

Equinox East

What’s all this mean? Means it’s time for a party. If you can make your way to Brooklyn on September 18th, we invite you to join us at Equinox East – a celebration of thesuccesses and a fundraiser to support efforts for more. Mark Ruffalo, everyone’s favorite green superhero, will join us as we honor Richard Kauffman for his visionarly leadership in New York. Brewery Ommegang and Four Roses Bourbon have come through with kind donations — it promises to be a good time.

Rates and Net Energy Metering

The revolution will not be monopolized. Across the country, monopoly utilities have been trying to make it harder for energy users to generate their own power with solar by adding fees and reducing the value of solar generation. Or trying to, anyway. Over the past several months, we’ve jumped into net metering and rate proceedings to protect rooftop solar rights in Colorado (+1), Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin among others.

Some breaking news: in Utah, we partnered with the good folks at Utah Clean Energy and team solar just scored a huge win, as regulators knocked down Rocky Mountain Power’s proposed ‘solar tax’.

We often say that one person’s decision to go solar reduces costs and provides benefits for everyone. Know who else is making that case? The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, which released a study showing that net metered solar results in net benefits for all ratepayers – to the tune of $174 million for systems installed between 2014 and 2016. It’s a blockbuster study, and deserves to be read widely. We helped Las Vegas solar supporters deliver thousands of petition signatures urging the Commission to keep those benefits shining.

It is customers that are driving solar growth, and we’re going to continue to fight for their right to go solar and get fair value from their investments.

Grid integration

Running a grid with high levels of renewables will require some changes. In the Spring, we hosted a webinar with Jim Lazar of RAP that outlines the basic paradigm of how to achieve this goal while maximizing environmental benefits and minimizing costs. We are working on multiple fronts, from expanding balancing areas, to enabling grid-edge tools like storage. In California, the Public Utilities Commission issued a decision that will make it significantly easier for energy customers to pair their solar system with an energy storage device. And we’ve also intervened a regulatory docket with the hopes of harnessing the latent capacity of electric vehicles to help with the grid integration problem.

In Southern California, we’re still working on bringing SDG&E around to the clean energy solution.

Group Energy

GroupEnergy is a new effort of ours to lower costs and build scale by helping homeowners pool their group buying power. We have several projects underway — but one that we are really excited about is with the City of Chicago. Seems the Windy City is really into solar — participation to date is DOUBLE the initial program goals, and it’s been getting a lot of local press!

Shared solar

Our Shared Solar work scored some base hits in helping solar work for those who don’t have a suitable rooftop of their own. Aggregate net metering (which allows a single customer to see bill saving benefits across multiple electric meters) is now a reality for all three investor owned utilities in California — a helpful advance while we are still working on implementing last year’s shared solar bill, SB 43, at the California Public Utilities Commission.

We pushed for new shared solar programs in Connecticut and New York – and the progress and support garnered over the course of our 2014 campaigns will help get us across the finish line in the years ahead.

Florida has a lot of solar potential — it even says so right on the license plates. So when Florida Power and Light proposed a half-baked shared solar program, we made the case to the regulators that the Sunshine State deserves better. Watch the video and see if you agree.

We are playing a similar role in Colorado — we’ve intervened on the proposed SolarConnect program to make sure the Centennial State gets a worthy program.

Rebirth of residential PACE

Once given up for dead, residential PACE clean energy financing programs are making a comeback in California. With the establishment of a state loss reserve program, on August 5 CaliforniaFIRST launched in 17 counties and 142 cities in California. They join Renovate America, Sonoma County, and mPower in Placer County (who’ve done over $300 million in clean energy upgrades so far!) to just about blanket the state in coverage.

On August 12, Los Angeles County voted to go forward with residential PACE clean energy finance program and San Francisco is planning its own shortly.

Financing is a key piece of the puzzle for reducing costs and growing scale in solar markets — over the years we’ve worked hard on PACE, enabling 3^rd party PPAs, and other solutions. We’ll continue to work on providing effective programs.

Solar cheaper than alternatives

Over the past year, we’ve seen an explosion of states where solar is cheaper . . . yes, cheaper . . . than building new fossil or nuclear plants – Georgia, Idaho, Utah, Minnesota, Texas, California, Colorado, to name a few. A recent solar contract with the city of Palo Alto’s municipal utility for 25 MW of PV came in at $68.72/MWh over a 27-year term. See if you can find someone who will offer the same building new fossil generation.

So if you see policymakers, reporters, or in-laws (not you, Maddie and Jim) repeating that zombie lie about solar being too expensive, feel free to share some of those links to reality.

America! We can do this!

September 8, 2014 0 comment

Solar Fee Proposal Rejected in Utah

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

On the last working day of the summer, the Utah PSC released its decision in the recent rate case of Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a subsidiary of Pacificorp (itself owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy). RMP had proposed a net metering facilities charge, a flat fee to be imposed on all residential customers that have rooftop solar and participate in Utah’s net metering program. Now the good news: the solar fee was soundly rejected.

This was a real win for customer choice and energy self-determination. RMP’s proposed solar fee was yet another example of a utility working to undermine a successful net metering program without justifying its proposal with actual costs and benefits.

The Commission rightly found the evidence, such as it was, to be “inconclusive, insufficient and inadequate to make a determination under a recently passed statute that requires an evaluation of costs and benefits.

“We conclude under these circumstances the better course is for [RMP] and interested parties to gather and analyze the necessary data, including the load profile data that is foundational to this analysis, and present to us their results and recommendations in a future proceeding.”

There were many concerns with the RMP proposal starting with some shady math. RMP’s proposed solar charge was derived based on the reduction in revenue resulting from using one’s own investment in solar generation. In other words if you consume less, we will charge you more!

The proposal took the average residential customer electricity purchase (698 kWh per month) and the average residential solar customer purchase (518 kWh per month), calculated the difference in distribution cost recovery between these two average consumption numbers, and called it a subsidy. The problem of course is that there are many more thousands of residential customers without solar who use even less than that each month, who were not being asked to pay a charge for the shortfall. Nor was the utility suggesting that a customer who uses more than the average electricity be given a credit for the excess payment. Nope – not even a thank you.

Another problem with RMP’s proposal was the narrow view it used to justify its sweeping solar fee proposal. It singled out one aspect of the entire spectrum of costs and benefits provided by distributed solar, and only for one class. This approach, known in regulatory parlance as single issue rate making, is dangerous for regulators because the regulated Company selectively seeks more revenue for a narrow part of a large issue when there may be other related factors that swing in the opposite direction. The good folks at the Commission did not take the bait however.

In a state whose motto is “Industry,” it’s troubling to find a major institution like RMP trying to discourage private investment in new technology that saves customers money, supports local business innovation, and adds value to the utility grid. RMP’s frontal attack on a customer’s right to self-determination fortunately did not go unnoticed. A huge congratulations is due to the many Utah stakeholders – local advocates, businesses, members of the faith community and others – who voiced their support for rooftop solar choice in the state. And thanks to the Utah PSC for their leadership in requiring a fact-based discussion of net metering impacts.

As requested by a number of parties in this case, the PSC is opening a new docket to look at the costs and benefits of net metered solar generation that will kick of on November 5. We may not be out of the woods, but thanks to the PSC, we are on the right path.

September 4, 2014 0 comment

CA Solar Permitting Bill Lands on Gov Brown’s Desk

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Time to toast an important legislative victory in Sacramento! Last week, the California Senate approved a bill to streamline solar permitting, clearing the final legislative hurdle for AB 2188 (Muratsuchi). Governor Brown is expected to sign the bill into law, which will require cities and counties across the state to conform to statewide best practices for solar permitting. That means lower costs and reduced wait times for many future solar customers. Big kudos to our friends at the California Solar Energy Industries Association (CALSEIA), and to the thousands of Vote Solar citizen members and others who pitched in to support AB 2188!

Here are some of the details on the bill:

Applies to permitting for PV systems 10kW or less, and solar thermal systems 30 kW or less
Requires local governments to adopt a solar ordinance by September 30, 2015 creating a streamlined permitting process that conforms to best practices for expeditious and efficient permitting of small residential rooftop solar systems
Requires that ordinance to create a permitting process for solar PV and solar thermal systems consistent with the goals and intent of the California Solar Rights Act and must “substantially conform” with the recommendations, standard plans, and checklists found in the most updated approved version of the Office of Planning and Research’s Solar Permitting Guidebook
Also seeks to streamline Homeowner Association (HOA) approval processes, reducing the ability for HOAs to increase the solar system’s cost or decrease the system’s efficiency

To learn more about the bill’s requirements, take a look at CALSEIA’s AB 2188 fact sheet.

August 29, 2014 0 comment

NY’s Historic Solar Commitment Turns From Promise to Reality

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

For over five years, New York has contemplated and debated a long-term program to drive the widespread adoption of solar from Buffalo to Brooklyn. Vote Solar has been there every step of the way. Our blood, sweat and tears finally paid off earlier this year when the State committed to support the development of a whopping ten times more solar by 2023!!

Just last week this promise turned reality with the launch of a revamped NY-Sun Initiative, which will fundamentally transform the statewide market. At the heart of a redesigned NY-Sun, multiple state solar programs will be merged with the goal of driving more than 3,000 megawatts (MW) statewide while tackling market barriers and creating solar opportunities for thousands of more New Yorkers.

Having advocated for many years for exactly this type of long-term solar program in New York, this is truly music to our ears and we’re ready to celebrate!

Most notably, this new NY-Sun will adopt “best in show” program design that will bring the market to scale and provide a clear path to sustain it for many years to come. Specifically, NY-Sun will use a proven MW block system approach that is responsive to changing market conditions and allows solar in each region of the state to grow at its own pace.

Tip of the hat to our friends at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) for their diligence, thoughtfulness and transparency in working with stakeholders to establish this strong program design. The MW block approach will utilize a publicly facing dashboard that shows real-time progression through the different incentive blocks and progress towards the goal of deploying more than 3,000 MW. Dashboard, here. More details about the MW blocks, here.

Governor Cuomo said it best, “Merging these programs into the NY-Sun Incentive Program will stimulate development of solar projects across this state, and sends a clear message that New York is a leader in solar energy innovation. This approach will help the industry plan for the future, spur new development and aid in New York’s transition to a cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy grid.”

August 26, 2014 0 comment

Florida Power & Light’s Half-Baked Solar Program Moves Forward

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

The Florida Public Service Commission cautiously approved Florida Power & Light’s proposed Voluntary Solar Partnership Program on August 12, following some remarkably, shall we say – candid – comments during the public meeting. So candid, in fact, that we felt it is worth sharing the highlights:

Commissioner Edgar: “Do you have a goal?”

FPL: “We do not have an ultimate goal.”

Commissioner Edgar: “Is this program cost-effective?”

FPL: “I’m not exactly sure what the definition of cost-effective refers to.”

It’s hard not to laugh and let FPL choose lifeline or phone a friend. But folks, this is serious business. Florida’s largest investor-owned utility, with its army of attorneys, engineers, financial analysts, and lobbyists, could not answer simple questions about its flagship new solar program. These are people on whom we rely to act in the public’s best interests. People the Commissioners look to for technical expertise. In that light, Tuesday’s showing is suddenly not so funny.

FPL voluntary solar proposal falls short of best practices

Some background: FPL proposed the “community based” voluntary solar program back in April as a replacement to rooftop solar incentives. The proposal quickly gained the wrong kind of traction among industry stakeholders and customers. The gist of FPL’s proposal: Customers should voluntarily pay an extra $9/month to support local solar projects.

Let’s be clear – we’re all for utilities taking the initiative to bring their customers the clean energy they want. And we love community shared solar, a model in which customers who might not be able to put solar on their own property can share the output of a solar project located elsewhere in their community. But FPL’s proposal is, to put it nicely, lacking.

For contrast, FPL’s investor-owned utility peers at Tucson Electric Power offer their customers energy from community solar projects at a fixed rate for 20 years. Which makes sense, because the fuel is free–that’s one of the main benefits of renewable power. While TEP’s customers pay a slight premium for the solar energy in the early years, the expectation is that they will save money over time as standard rates increase.

And at Orlando Utilities Commission, which pioneered community solar in Florida, it works the same way: higher rate up front, but participating customers get to lock it in for 25 years. Now, we could argue that there should not even be an initial premium for the solar, but the point is that these utilities are at least making a straight-faced effort to offer their customers the bill-saving benefits of going solar. OUC customers agree — the program sold out in under a week.

Advocates recommend solar program improvements

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Vote Solar filed comments in July expanding on the public’s demand for a scalable solution to solar energy for the masses. And Vote Solar’s Justin Hoysradt was on hand at Tuesday’s meeting to offer some national context on community solar programs, and request that the Commission direct FPL to consult with stakeholders to ensure that their program would actually benefit customers. After FPL staff could not answer questions on the program’s goals, justification, or cost-effectiveness, Commissioner Brisé did just that – suggesting that the utility work with stakeholders to improve program design.

We look forward to that stakeholder engagement, and to seeing FPL deliver on its much-advertised commitment to bring more clean energy to its customers in the Sunshine State.

August 21, 2014 0 comment

Rebirth of Residential PACE Financing

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Residential PACE, an innovative clean energy financing program, is making a comeback in California.

With the establishment of a state loss reserve program designed to address FHFA’s concerns, this week CaliforniaFIRST launched a massive residential PACE program for 17 counties and 142 cities in California. The innovative clean energy financing program covers 14 million people — almost a third of California’s population.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a good article covering the development, as the San Jose Mercury News.

CaliforniaFIRST joins a couple of other residential programs in the state. Sonoma County has long been a leader, with a longstanding program that continued in the face of FHFA objections. To date, Sonoma County has done 2,030 residential projects, totaling $56 million worth of investments (plus another ~$10m worth of commercial). Placer County has launched a new residential program called mPower. And Renovate America’s HERO program has already done $260 million worth of upgrades on 14,000 projects and is rapidly expanding.

All told, at this point most of the state of California is now (or will soon be) served by a residential PACE program.

August 8, 2014 0 comment

Massachusetts Lawmakers Raise the Net Metering Cap in the Final Hour

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

After a last push to pass comprehensive solar legislation last week, Massachusetts lawmakers worked into the wee hours of the morning on the final day of session to instead pass S.2214, a bill that’s focused on raising the looming cap on the state’s successful net metering program. While it is not as robust as H.4185, which would have removed the caps on net metering altogether and memorialized the state’s 1,600 megawatt (“MW”) by 2020 solar goal, S.2214 does send an important signal to the state’s vibrant solar industry – namely, that Massachusetts is committed to its growing solar market.

Net metering is the simple and straightforward policy that provides Bay Staters with full credit on their energy bills for the valuable clean electricity they deliver to the grid for use nearby. Specifically, S.2214 raises the net metering cap for local governments from 3 to 5 percent of a distribution company’s peak load and raises the cap for business and private sector installations from 3 to 4 percent. This provides critical relief as government entities have already reached their caps in parts of the state – with businesses not far behind. This interim cap raise offers a welcome contrast to the many states across the country where we are fighting to protect net metering programs altogether. It’s clear that Massachusetts sees real value in its new solar economy and the proven policies that are supporting it.

S.2214 will keep the state’s solar market from grinding to a halt in the near term – but with strong solar growth ahead, there is no question that the state will need to continue its consideration of a long-term, sustainable plan for its net metering program. Recognizing this imperative, S.2214 also establishes a net metering task force to review the long-term viability of net metering and to develop recommendations for policies and programs that will support continued solar deployment. Comprising a diverse mix of stakeholders, the task force is required to report its findings, along with any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reforms, back to the legislature by March 31, 2015.

With the majority of residential and small commercial systems already exempt from the state’s net metering caps (see FAQ #55), we agree that it will be vital to undertake comprehensive consideration of policies and programs to ensure that all aspects of the state’s solar market continue to thrive. Indeed, negotiations over the past several months around the compromise solar legislation (H.4185) clearly demonstrated that the state’s solar market comprises diverse value propositions for a variety of customer segments. And that’s a good thing! In Massachusetts and all across the country, we think the strongest market is one that allows as many participants as possible to invest in and benefit from solar power.

We look forward to working with all stakeholders as this process unfolds over the coming year. For the moment, however, we’ll enjoy a cup of chowda as we celebrate that more Bay Staters can choose solar thanks to S.2214.

August 5, 2014 0 comment

“Solar Tax” on the Table in Utah General Rate Case

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

I spent part of this week in Utah, where the major utility has proposed a discriminatory fee for net metered solar customers as part of its General Rate Case – or GRC.

GRCs are typically complicated matters. They evaluate a utility’s assets, expenses, and capitalization to develop the revenue required by the utility to achieve a rate of return on shareholder equity (i.e. profit) high enough to attract private capital to this very capital-intensive industry. This part of the case involves truckloads of witnesses, testimony and exhibits. And that’s just the first phase. Once the Commission figures out how much money it is willing to let the utility collect, the second phase divvies up the total pot of revenues across all the various classes of utility customers – residential, commercial, and industrial to name some major categories. More witnesses, more truckloads, and then a hearing rivaling the chariot race in Ben Hur. Not surprising since all of these attorneys and expert witnesses are fighting over tens – if not hundreds of millions of dollars – include Commission authorized profits for the utility. The granular economic, financial, legal, engineering and accounting considerations will often number in the hundreds.

That’s why when a utility files a change to net metering policy in the context of a rate case, we join with a keen appreciation for the complicated road ahead. In Utah, Rocky Mountain Power or “RMP” filed such a rate case late last year. We joined the fray with our friends and partners at Utah Clean Energy. True to form, the case followed the expected pattern until early this summer when all of the disparate parties got together and settled every last darn issue! Well, all except one. Can you guess which one that might have been?

Right. The net metering charge RMP seeks to impose upon those self-reliant customers who install solar on their homes. This “solar tax” – so-called by local groups – would amount to an 8% rate increase on net-metered customers.

If a utility in Utah or any other state brings sweeping changes to the treatment of net metering customers to the Commission for consideration, it also has the legal burden of proving that the issue is indeed critical, and that its proposed resolution is reasonable and in the public interest. In our view, RMP has proven none of these points.

The utility argues that revenue reduction from customers generating their own power is a cost of net metering. Therefore, the argument goes, such customers should pay an additional charge to make up the difference. And this should apply to all existing and new residential solar customers, and start really soon – like September 1. Meanwhile the utility has yet to undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to make their case with . . . facts. The utility’s 2,000 net metering customers account for just 0.25% of its residential customer base. This issue is clearly not so acute that there isn’t time to do the proper analysis. There is time for a fact-based conversation rather than rash action that would seriously impact solar customers in the state.

Opponents of the fee – Vote Solar included – argue that charging solar customers a fee is discriminatory and does not properly account for the very real grid benefits of rooftop solar. Private investment in local solar reduces the need for utilities to invest in (and rate base) expensive and polluting fossil fuel power plants and electricity grid infrastructure. Furthermore it is clearly in the public interest to empower more energy consumers to choose clean energy and bring economic, public health and environmental benefits to their community.

Fortunately, we have the Commissioners who strive to understand very complex GRC issues from varying perspectives and ultimately pass judgment on the utility’s solar fee proposal. The diverse set of voices speaking out against this solar fee – including 150 individuals who attended a rally at the Commission yesterday – clearly shows that Utahns care deeply about their ability to go solar. We hope that the Commission will stand strong for solar choice rather than letting the utility’s business interests outweigh the customers they serve. Stay tuned.

July 31, 2014 1 comment

Aggregate Net Metering a Reality for All Three California IOUs

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Sometimes a single energy customer has multiple neighboring electricity meters. Farmers, for example, might have water pumping stations on more than one parcel of land. For a number of reasons, it makes sense to allow these customers to install just one solar array to reduce their electricity demand and utility bills at those various nearby locations. It lowers the cost to the customer, it reduces the administrative burden of serving that customer, and it generally supports a more efficient approach to clean energy. Californians in all three major utility territories can now take this commonsense approach to solar through the state’s new aggregate net metering policy.

Late last week, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a resolution authorizing Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric to join PG&E in allowing their customers to aggregate their meters on adjacent properties. Making this policy a reality in the Golden State has been a long time coming. Today’s approval is the final step in the implementation of SB 594, an aggregate net metering bill from Senator Wolk that was passed in 2012. Along the way, solar advocates pointed out problems with the advice letters first filed by the utilities to implement the law in October 2013. PG&E’s revised tariff was approved by the Energy Division in February, but it took longer to resolve remaining issues for the two SoCal IOUs. Once the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rules have also been modified to allow state incentives to be applied to a net metering system sized to offset the entire aggregated load, we call this a job well done. Many thanks to the hardworking CPUC staff who saw it through!

July 15, 2014 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts