By Andrea Lang, Energy
Fellow
Recent decisions
by Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) in Nevada and California illustrate the
debate going on around the country about net-metering policies. A net-metering
policy requires utilities to “net” out the amount of electricity that solar
owners use versus what they provide back into the grid, essentially allowing
their meters to run backwards when they are providing energy from solar panels
and offsetting their retail electricity costs. More than 40 states have a net-metering
policy in place, and while they have never been popular with utilities, the debate seems to be heating up lately. This is likely because
as the cost of installing solar panels has dropped over the last several years, more and more homeowners have been installing rooftop solar and taking advantage
of net-metering rules.
The biggest argument against net-metering is that it shifts costs from people that can afford
solar panels onto those that cannot. That is, although solar owners are
providing electricity that the utility doesn’t have to buy elsewhere, they
aren’t paying for the transmission and distribution costs, either. Utilities
argue that those costs unfairly shift onto non-solar owners, increasing their electricity
rates.
It is this
argument that led Nevada’s PUC to essentially abolish its net-metering program
last December. NVEnergy, Nevada’s largest utility and biggest advocate against
net metering, describes the new rule as establishing “new net energy metering rules and rates.” The
Nevada PUC, too, describes its decision as establishing “net metering rates.” However, the whole idea
behind net-metering is that it does not involve rates at all, but merely allows
a customer’s meter to run backwards and offset some of the energy they use. Under
the decision, Nevada doesn't allow true net metering because while it allows solar customers to use the power
they generate, and thus offset their retail consumption directly with their own
generation, it doesn't allow customers to net out their solar generation and
retail purchases on a monthly basis. Instead, solar owners get to potentially
consume some or all of the power they generate, and then earn the new tariff
rates for the solar power they produce but don't consume onsite.
The PUC will
replace Nevada’s net metering program with something that is more akin to a feed-in tariff program.
The new program requires utilities to purchase solar power from their customers,
charges solar customers a service charge, and gradually reduces solar
customers’ bill credits from higher retail rates (which they effectively earn
under the existing net-metering program by virtue of the meter running
backwards) to significantly lower wholesale rates.
Although the PUC
had initially proposed to apply this rule not only to future solar owners but
also to existing ones, it has since backed down from that position. It appears to be strongly considering a compromise position to “grandfather” existing solar owners under the
net-metering program, but apply the new tariff program to new owners. If this
grandfathering provision is not added, thousands of customers who expected to recoup the costs of their investment in solar
panels through the net-metering program will be hit hard by the significantly
less beneficial feed-in tariff program.
The decision is especially
confounding in light of the findings of a report the Nevada PUC commissioned last year. The report concluded that
although non-solar customers may have experienced some cost shifting in the
past, it was unlikely to be an issue in the coming years due to the need for
utilities to invest in green energy to comply with state’s renewable portfolio
standard.
On the other
hand, last week California’s PUC resisted the same arguments, deciding to keep its net-metering
program in spite of utilities’ growing dissatisfaction with it. The 3-2
decision was a narrow but significant victory for solar advocates, and should
allow California’s booming solar industry to keep growing.
As the cost of
solar continues to drop and more homeowners opt to install solar panels on
their homes, it seems likely that states will increasingly revisit their
net-metering policies. I only hope PUCs are able to see through utilities’
self-interested arguments and realize that the benefits of incentivizing increased
green distributed generation far exceed the costs.
Very informative and impressive post you have written, this is quite interesting and i have went through it completely, an upgraded information is shared, keep sharing such valuable information. Utility Installation Companies
ReplyDelete