Archive of Topic: solar energy

Nia Novella Jones

A recent grad­u­ate of North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty with a B.S. in Indus­tri­al Engi­neer­ing with minor in Law & Pub­lic Policy.

I intend to research the inter­sec­tion of renew­able ener­gy tech­nol­o­gy, edu­ca­tion, and specif­i­cal­ly prison edu­ca­tion pro­grams focused on STEM. Ulti­mate­ly, my goal is to work with for­mal­ly incar­cer­at­ed cit­i­zens as they pre­pare for re-entry into soci­ety. I aspire to work with renew­able ener­gy projects in Africa to ful­fill my goal as devel­op­ing into a World Class “Ener­gy” Engineer.

Proposed state fee would end solar savings (San Francisco Chronicle, November 1, 2015)

Pro­posed state fee would end solar savings

 

by Jon Welling­hoff and Daniel Kammen

 

Pho­to: Rich Pedron­cel­li, Asso­ci­at­ed Press

A solar pan­el is installed in mid-Octo­ber on the roof of the Governor’s Man­sion State His­toric Park in Sacramento.

 

Cal­i­for­nia con­sumers are embrac­ing rooftop solar with prac­ti­cal enthu­si­asm, bring­ing the state halfway toward its goal of a mil­lion solar rooftops by 2020. New rules pro­posed by a state agency, how­ev­er, would impose fees that would wipe out the sav­ings of solar, effec­tive­ly end­ing cus­tomer choice for mid­dle-class Cal­i­for­nia ratepayers.

 

Whether Cal­i­for­ni­ans con­tin­ue to have the choice to gen­er­ate some of their pow­er from solar pan­els is now up to the Cal­i­for­nia Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion, which is expect­ed to issue new rules in com­ing weeks. Sad­ly and pre­dictably, the state’s largest pri­vate util­i­ties have asked the com­mis­sion to end the state’s net ener­gy meter­ing pol­i­cy because solar rooftops are deemed com­pe­ti­tion that threat­ens the cen­tu­ry-old monop­oly util­i­ty busi­ness model.

 

What is sur­pris­ing to us, how­ev­er, is the pro­pos­al com­ing from the state’s Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates, the inde­pen­dent enti­ty with­in the com­mis­sion that advo­cates on behalf of ratepay­ers. The office is advo­cat­ing month­ly fees on new solar cus­tomers that are more extreme than those sought by the most anti-rooftop-solar utilities.

 

When I was the con­sumer advo­cate in Neva­da pri­or to serv­ing as the Fed­er­al Ener­gy Reg­u­la­to­ry Com­mis­sion chair­man, I under­stood my role to include advo­ca­cy for the ratepay­ers of today as well as those of the future. I knew it was vital to update how we think about the role of util­i­ties and where we get our ener­gy. My co-author, Daniel Kam­men, runs an intern­ship pro­gram with the Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates, where ana­lyt­ic capac­i­ty exists to sup­port cut­ting-edge analy­sis of costs and ben­e­fits of rooftop solar. So far the office has failed to do so.

 

We know the proposal:

 

  • Would destroy a huge por­tion of poten­tial elec­tric bill sav­ings from installing solar. It would have the typ­i­cal res­i­den­tial solar cus­tomer pay addi­tion­al fixed charges of $50 to $70 each month — sim­ply for buy­ing less util­i­ty pow­er by going solar. The charge, which depends on the size of the solar sys­tem, would esca­late over time from $2 per kilo­watt to $10 per kilowatt.

Ari­zona Pub­lic Ser­vice, the largest util­i­ty in Ari­zona and one noto­ri­ous­ly hos­tile to rooftop solar, recent­ly pro­posed increas­ing its ill-con­sid­ered installed capac­i­ty fee from 70 cents per kilo­watt to $3 per kilo­watt — and then quick­ly with­drew the pro­pos­al in the face of pub­lic oppo­si­tion. It trou­bles us that California’s offi­cial ratepay­er advo­cate appears to be tak­ing its cue from Ari­zona util­i­ties and then seek­ing anti­so­lar charges far beyond what those util­i­ties even dared to propose.

 

Cal­i­for­nia con­sumers are embrac­ing rooftop solar with prac­ti­cal enthu­si­asm, bring­ing the state halfway toward its goal of a mil­lion solar rooftops by 2020. New rules pro­posed by a state agency, how­ev­er, would impose fees that would wipe out the sav­ings of solar, effec­tive­ly end­ing cus­tomer choice for mid­dle-class Cal­i­for­nia ratepayers.

 

Whether Cal­i­for­ni­ans con­tin­ue to have the choice to gen­er­ate some of their pow­er from solar pan­els is now up to the Cal­i­for­nia Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion, which is expect­ed to issue new rules in com­ing weeks. Sad­ly and pre­dictably, the state’s largest pri­vate util­i­ties have asked the com­mis­sion to end the state’s net ener­gy meter­ing pol­i­cy because solar rooftops are deemed com­pe­ti­tion that threat­ens the cen­tu­ry-old monop­oly util­i­ty busi­ness model.

 

What is sur­pris­ing to us, how­ev­er, is the pro­pos­al com­ing from the state’s Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates, the inde­pen­dent enti­ty with­in the com­mis­sion that advo­cates on behalf of ratepay­ers. The office is advo­cat­ing month­ly fees on new solar cus­tomers that are more extreme than those sought by the most anti-rooftop-solar utilities.

 

When I was the con­sumer advo­cate in Neva­da pri­or to serv­ing as the Fed­er­al Ener­gy Reg­u­la­to­ry Com­mis­sion chair­man, I under­stood my role to include advo­ca­cy for the ratepay­ers of today as well as those of the future. I knew it was vital to update how we think about the role of util­i­ties and where we get our ener­gy. My co-author, Daniel Kam­men, runs an intern­ship pro­gram with the Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates, where ana­lyt­ic capac­i­ty exists to sup­port cut­ting-edge analy­sis of costs and ben­e­fits of rooftop solar. So far the office has failed to do so.

 

We know the proposal:

  • Would destroy a huge por­tion of poten­tial elec­tric bill sav­ings from installing solar. It would have the typ­i­cal res­i­den­tial solar cus­tomer pay addi­tion­al fixed charges of $50 to $70 each month — sim­ply for buy­ing less util­i­ty pow­er by going solar. The charge, which depends on the size of the solar sys­tem, would esca­late over time from $2 per kilo­watt to $10 per kilowatt.

 

Ari­zona Pub­lic Ser­vice, the largest util­i­ty in Ari­zona and one noto­ri­ous­ly hos­tile to rooftop solar, recent­ly pro­posed increas­ing its ill-con­sid­ered installed capac­i­ty fee from 70 cents per kilo­watt to $3 per kilo­watt — and then quick­ly with­drew the pro­pos­al in the face of pub­lic oppo­si­tion. It trou­bles us that California’s offi­cial ratepay­er advo­cate appears to be tak­ing its cue from Ari­zona util­i­ties and then seek­ing anti-solar charges far beyond what those util­i­ties even dared to propose.

 

  • Ignores the many ways rooftop solar pro­vides sav­ings for all ratepay­ers, whether or not they install solar.

 

For exam­ple, when rooftop solar pro­duces ener­gy on hot sum­mer days, it alle­vi­ates the need to run (and util­i­ties to pur­chase pow­er from) inef­fi­cient nat­ur­al gas “peak­er” plants. Because the most expen­sive plant sets the price paid, the sav­ings to ratepay­ers from reduc­ing elec­tric­i­ty demand are sub­stan­tial. Nei­ther these sav­ings nor the direct finan­cial ben­e­fit of low­er­ing the expo­sure to volatile nat­ur­al gas prices was considered.

 

  • Would sti­fle the mar­ket for emerg­ing tech­nolo­gies. The Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates could be look­ing for ways to make the elec­tric grid more effi­cient and ben­e­fit ratepay­ers Cal­i­for­nia is the nation’s undis­put­ed leader in solar pow­er and, giv­en the state’s ambi­tious clean ener­gy goals, our state reg­u­la­tors must be bold and for­ward-think­ing. The Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates claims its pro­pos­al pro­motes solar, but it would restrict rooftop solar to only the wealthy — and deprive all Cal­i­for­nia ratepay­ers of more local jobs, clean­er air, reduced cli­mate impacts, a more resilient grid and oth­er soci­etal benefits.

 

For more than 100 years, con­sumers have had no choice but to pur­chase their elec­tric­i­ty from the monop­oly util­i­ty. With­out com­pe­ti­tion, util­i­ties lack the full incen­tive to inno­vate and to reduce their costs and pass the sav­ings on to con­sumers. This leads to elec­tric rates that rise con­tin­u­ous­ly. To pro­tect elec­tric ratepay­ers, the Office of Ratepay­er Advo­cates and the Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion should sup­port inno­va­tion and healthy com­pe­ti­tion in the pow­er indus­try that will result in cheap­er, clean­er and safer elec­tric­i­ty for all ratepayers.

 

Jon Welling­hoff, a lawyer, is the for­mer chair­man of the Fed­er­al Ener­gy Reg­u­la­to­ry Com­mis­sion and Nevada’s first Advo­cate for Cus­tomers of Pub­lic Util­i­ties. Daniel Kam­men is a pro­fes­sor of ener­gy in the Ener­gy and Resources Group and in the Gold­man School of Pub­lic Pol­i­cy at UC Berke­ley. Twit­ter: @dan_kammen

 

To com­ment, sub­mit your let­ter to the edi­tor at www​.sfgate​.com/​s​u​b​m​i​s​s​i​ons.

 

Cal­i­for­nia solar

 

450,000

 

The num­ber of solar rooftops in Cal­i­for­nia, out of 650,000 installed nationwide

50 per­cent

 

The 2030 goal for the por­tion of the state’s ener­gy port­fo­lio from solar, wind, bio­mass and geot­her­mal ener­gy sources

 

$50 to $70 a month

 

The “installed capac­i­ty fee” the Office of Ratepay­ers Advo­cates pro­pos­es tack­ing onto solar cus­tomers’ elec­tric bill

 

Main Menu
RAEL Info

Energy & Resources Group
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050
Phone: (510) 642-1640
Fax: (510) 642-1085
Email: ergdeskb@berkeley.edu


Projects

  • Open the Main Menu
  • People at RAEL

  • Open the Main Menu