On December 15, 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission referred to as CPUC, in a 3-to-2 vote, rejected the centralized utility proposals of PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE to eliminate the public’s well-received rules that make rooftop solar cost-effective. Utility proposals submitted to the commission to slash the value of credits for power received from their solar-producing customers and impose large new fees for new and existing solar customers were shot down.
The CPUC’s decision primarily was in favor for the continuation of Net Energy Metering (NEM), an agreed to set of rules that “governs how rooftop solar systems are compensated by the utilities for the energy they produce, and what connection fees and other charges are assessed.”
California’s Center for Climate Protection believes the CPUC’s decision is a precedent-setting victory for rooftop solar [1] in support of what many accept as an increasingly clean energy future. As many Americans believe, where California goes, so does the rest of the nation. But solar advocates are not naive. Vigilance against backlash from the centralized, investor-owned utilities, is required.
California’s Center for Climate Protection believes the CPUC’s decision is a precedent-setting victory for rooftop solar [1] in support of what many accept as an increasingly clean energy future. As many Americans believe, where California goes, so does the rest of the nation. But solar advocates are not naive. Vigilance against backlash from the centralized, investor-owned utilities, is required.
What did the commission’s ruling sustain?
The December ruling allows net metering customers to continue receiving compensation under today’s NEM rules and rates for 20 years after the installation of their arrays.
Why would companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric appeal a common sense decision in favor of residential and community solar?
The utilities argue about the unfairness of it all, claiming residential producers of solar energy are not paying their fair share for upkeep of the common electric grid. However, as I’ve been arguing, since 2004, the redistribution of energy production (to rooftop solar, in this case) is a threat to the centralized control of large utility operators. In chapter 7 of my murder mystery, Laura Paige and Gail Fong discuss the situation to support distributed solar over centralized energy producers who use coal or nuclear to do the same thing.
Specifically, to this latest ruling against them, the highlights of the net energy metering decision, as Geoffrey Smith and Brad Heavner, policy director for CalSEIA, see it, include:
• NEM, as currently written, is preserved with full retail credit for rooftop solar producers (and not at wholesale rates as is done in some other states)
• No reduced compensation rate
• No demand or standby charges
• No capacity or grid access fees
• No monthly netting
• Exemptions remain in place from study fees and distribution upgrades
• Virtual net metering (V-NEM) and meter aggregation continue with full retail credit
• Market-rate V-NEM is expanded to allow participation behind multiple service delivery points on a single property (e.g. schools, wineries, and more).
While many solar advocates are motivated by a future free of fossil fuels, others, like me, are motivated by the independence garnered by distributed energy production. Besides, as we’ll find out in another of my BLOG posts, generation of on-site electricity improves its quality for local consumption while feeding excess power back to the larger electric grid. I discovered this fact most instructively when I worked at Enphase Energy back in the late 2000s.
The commission’s ruling is a “fair compromise that will maintain the opportunity for customers to go solar.” Brad Heavner adds, “It is consistent with Governor Brown's strong commitment to transforming our energy system into one that is based on clean, local power.”
And, so, it was not much of a surprise when, on March 7, 2016, the three utilities filed paperwork to have the commission vacate its ruling. The fight continues, but for now, NEM is in force across the Golden State.
[1] According to GTM Research, the U.S. installed 7,260 Megawatts of solar PV in 2015, the largest annual total ever and 16 percent above 2014. Residential PV was the fastest-growing solar sector, with more than 2,000 Megawatts installed for the first time and growing 66 percent over 2014. California solar installations were a big part of these record-setting metrics.
The December ruling allows net metering customers to continue receiving compensation under today’s NEM rules and rates for 20 years after the installation of their arrays.
Why would companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric appeal a common sense decision in favor of residential and community solar?
The utilities argue about the unfairness of it all, claiming residential producers of solar energy are not paying their fair share for upkeep of the common electric grid. However, as I’ve been arguing, since 2004, the redistribution of energy production (to rooftop solar, in this case) is a threat to the centralized control of large utility operators. In chapter 7 of my murder mystery, Laura Paige and Gail Fong discuss the situation to support distributed solar over centralized energy producers who use coal or nuclear to do the same thing.
Specifically, to this latest ruling against them, the highlights of the net energy metering decision, as Geoffrey Smith and Brad Heavner, policy director for CalSEIA, see it, include:
• NEM, as currently written, is preserved with full retail credit for rooftop solar producers (and not at wholesale rates as is done in some other states)
• No reduced compensation rate
• No demand or standby charges
• No capacity or grid access fees
• No monthly netting
• Exemptions remain in place from study fees and distribution upgrades
• Virtual net metering (V-NEM) and meter aggregation continue with full retail credit
• Market-rate V-NEM is expanded to allow participation behind multiple service delivery points on a single property (e.g. schools, wineries, and more).
While many solar advocates are motivated by a future free of fossil fuels, others, like me, are motivated by the independence garnered by distributed energy production. Besides, as we’ll find out in another of my BLOG posts, generation of on-site electricity improves its quality for local consumption while feeding excess power back to the larger electric grid. I discovered this fact most instructively when I worked at Enphase Energy back in the late 2000s.
The commission’s ruling is a “fair compromise that will maintain the opportunity for customers to go solar.” Brad Heavner adds, “It is consistent with Governor Brown's strong commitment to transforming our energy system into one that is based on clean, local power.”
And, so, it was not much of a surprise when, on March 7, 2016, the three utilities filed paperwork to have the commission vacate its ruling. The fight continues, but for now, NEM is in force across the Golden State.
[1] According to GTM Research, the U.S. installed 7,260 Megawatts of solar PV in 2015, the largest annual total ever and 16 percent above 2014. Residential PV was the fastest-growing solar sector, with more than 2,000 Megawatts installed for the first time and growing 66 percent over 2014. California solar installations were a big part of these record-setting metrics.