Solar energy has become increasingly powerful. Its rise to the top, however, hasn’t been without a few bumps along the way.
Regulatory battles pitting the solar industry against power companies in a fight over payment models played out in several states this year. As the dust settles, solar providers are claiming victory. Utilities, on the other hand, are trying to reframe the conversation entirely by insisting they aren’t an enemy of the industry.
Much of the debate so far has centered around a policy on the books in 43 states called net-metering. Net-metering allows rooftop solar owners to sell excess electricity back to the grid, with utilities issuing full retail credit to the customer based on the amount of power they provide.
Utilities are pushing to scale back or get rid of net-metering, calling it a subsidy that solar has outgrown. The rooftop solar industry, on the other hand, has resisted the fight to dismantle net-metering, arguing that it’s an equitable way of paying for power generation.
In a series of high-profile cases this year in Arizona, California, Idaho, and Louisiana, state lawmakers and regulatory commissioners sided with industry and moved to either uphold or strengthen net-metering.
“The national story right now is quite clear,” said Bryan Miller, the president of the Alliance for Solar Choice, a solar-advocacy organization. “There have now been four major verdicts on net-metering, and in every case proposed regulatory changes to the policy have been rejected.”
A second point of contention has been whether utilities should charge solar customers extra. Utilities say additional fees are needed to defray the cost of grid upkeep. Opponents say power companies simply want to stamp out competition.
In November, Georgia Power backed down from a proposal to tack on fees for rooftop solar customers amid pressure from consumer advocates and solar boosters. And in Idaho, the state public utilities commission rejected a similar proposal.
Arizona bucked the trend when the Arizona Corporation Commission decided that Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility company, could hike rates for solar customers.
It sounds like a win for the utility. But solar groups say it’s not.
“In Arizona, APS got a lot less [in terms of the fee] then what they were asking for,” Miller commented. “They wanted the fees to be somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 dollars so the final ruling shows the political boundaries of the issue. And at the same time the commission upheld net-metering.”
Utilities providers, unsurprisingly, have a somewhat different perspective.
“The commission’s decision recognizes there is a cost shift occurring where solar users aren’t paying what they should for use of the grid,” said David Owens, the executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association for U.S. investor-owned electric companies.
Solar groups gained more ground than they lost this year. But declarations of victory by either side fail to capture the whole picture.
“There is an unfair characterization of utilities versus solar,” Owens said. “I’m not afraid of rooftop solar. We see opportunities there and we’re investing in utility scale and other solar projects. We’re not anti-solar at all.”
What is clear is that heading into next year the question of solar power payment has not been resolved.
State-level decisions impacting net-metering and fees for solar customers are begining to look like just the start of a much larger conversation around reworking utility payment structures in the age of distributed generation, an era whose hallmark will be customers that create their own electricity without needing to rely on a centralized power generator.
Both sides know the conversation is coming, if it hasn’t already arrived.
“What we need to be talking about is what’s the best way to allocate costs and how can we do this equitably and continue to enhance the grid,” Owens said. “What we’ve seen this year is a recognition in various states that current rate-design structures are not working and they need to be revisited.”
For once, rooftop solar advocates don’t disagree.
“I think we’re seeing is that regulators realize that you have to address these issues in the context of rate design,” Miller said. “The main thing is that when we look at rate design as a whole, solar shouldn’t be made a target.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."