Battles Over Net Metering Cloud the Future of Rooftop Solar

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Battles Over Net Metering Cloud the Future of Rooftop Solar[/font]

[font size=4]Nevada’s reversal of net metering fees for solar owners marks a dramatic turn in the fight over solar policies.[/font]

By Richard Martin on January 5, 2016

[font size=3]Solar power installer SolarCity, the country’s largest provider of rooftop panels, has exited the Nevada market in the wake of the state’s rollback of the net metering fees paid to residential solar owners. The departure marks an escalation in the war over net metering that is roiling the industry.

One of the fastest-growing markets for residential solar, Nevada is the first state to drastically revise its policies on net metering—wherein owners of residential solar arrays are compensated for the power they send onto the utility power grid, usually at retail rates. All but a handful of states have instituted net metering. Claiming that these fees represent an unfair transfer of costs to the utilities and non-solar customers, utilities have mounted a well-funded campaign to reduce or eliminate the payments. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission concurred, calling on utilities to cut the compensation for solar providers from retail to wholesale rates.

Not surprisingly, the solar industry disagrees. Calling the net metering decision “unethical, unprecedented, and possibly unlawful,” SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive predicted that it will “destroy the rooftop solar industry in one of the states with the most sunshine.”

…

Events in Nevada, though, could signal a major reshaping of the economics of solar power for homeowners. The retail rate of electricity in Nevada is 12.39 cents per kilowatt-hour; the wholesale price for electricity in the region that includes Nevada averaged around two cents per kilowatt-hour in December. According to a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the cost of a residential solar system has fallen to around 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. With federal and state subsidies and tax benefits, that figure drops to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour or less. If the retail rate for electricity from the grid (absent net metering fees) is less than that, solar is a poor investment; if it’s more, solar is a good investment.

…[/font][/font]

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. In principle, I don't disagree.

The customers selling their power to the utility do so using infrastructure that everyone else is left paying for.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Sure

The rest of us are paying to provide an incentive for someone to make a sizable investment. Personally, I’m OK with that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. We're all making investments, but ratepayers investments are in *shared* infrastructure.

I may see this differently because I'm served by a public utility district, in which the organization is owned by ratepayers.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Well, we’re paying for it in a number of ways

1. With or without the net metering, there are “government subsidies.” Well, the government gets money from us. So, the taxpayers are kicking in to help pay for solar installations.
2. As you point out, the infrastructure is paid for by the ratepayers. Whichever, whether the ratepayers finance it, or the government does, so, either the taxpayers or the ratepayers are financing that.

As I said, I’m OK with that. I see solar as a social good, and one which I am willing to help finance.

[SheilaT]

2. It's probably just a matter of time before

some states put solar rights in the same category as mineral rights, meaning you might own the land but you do not own the rights to the minerals under the ground. That means, the person who owns those rights can come in and take those minerals and doesn't owe you a penny.

I'm very surprised that states with a lot of solar energy available (AZ, NV, NM just to name three) haven't made it possible for utility companies to plant solar panels wherever they want and not owe the home or landowner a penny.

For what it's worth, I live in NM, lots of sunshine, and I recently talked to a guy representing a company that installs solar panels, and learned that since I pay less than $50/month for my electricity (small home, one person) it would simply not pay for me to install them.

[FBaggins]

3. Net metering was always a way to incentivize solar adoption (i.e., a subsidy)

It was a way to get from ~0% penetration to more reasonable adoption rates.

We all know (or should) that a future that involves significant variable-renewables penetration must involve a more sophisticated market (particularly smart metering).

This is really caused by the success of solar PV, not a battle between consumers and power companies. We could argue that the change is coming too soon and PV should continue to be subsidized, but we can't pretend that substantial solar penetration won't eventually result in people only being paid what their production is actually worth (which will in turn incentivize distributed storage).

[ViseGrip]

5. It's not possible in Florida either, Duke Energy own the politicians in four states.

IT's the coal lobby too.

Right now, you can buy (if you can) solar panels, but you must hook them up to your utility grid. You must pay their solar price, higher than the panel companies will contract with you. You also must sell your access to the utility, instead of looking on the market, and selling to the highest bidder, and getting the return on your panel cost, or it's not cost effective. The panels are expensive.

In 46 states, (but now trying to roll back a few) you can contract directly with the solar panel company. They hook THEIR meter up, and contract with you for their price of the solar, for 10-15 years! It's also a lower price than the utility solar price. For those who cannot afford panels, you can contract with the panel company, to allow them to take your access and sell it on the market. Then they can GIVE you the panel. You see, they are really in the market of selling energy, and are just looking for roofs to place their panels.

Florida statutes say utility customers cannot contract out with a third party utility (solar) for energy or the price of that energy. Zero competition! It's a monopoly! Monopolies are suppose to be illegal!

Florida is in the TOP THREE FOR ROOFTOP POTENTIAL! THE SUNSHINE STATE for crap sake. The four states blocking the sunshine via Duke Energy owning the politicians in those states are NC (Duke HQ), Florida, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. The coal lobby and governors and state legs, all in Duke's pockets. They pay for their campaigns.

Everything else is the solar conversations right now, is smoke.