SolarCity’s Jessica Patrick was laid off when net metering was torpedoed.
state—into outfitting their homes with solar generating systems. Some will not be able to pay for the systems with the savings those systems produce—the way the state net metering program was originally intended to work (usually over a seven- or eight-year period). Critics call it bait-and-switch, behavior that would not be permitted by a private business. “These actions are certainly unethical, unprecedented and possibly unlawful,” said SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive. Around the country, utilities are nibbling away in various ways to undercut small system generation, sometimes with the assistance of utility commissions, sometimes without. In Iowa, utilities ban customers who bank extra power, undercutting the financial viability of solar. They refuse to net meter third-party solar, in which third parties own systems and lease them to customers or sell them energy. Oklahoma and Arizona have hit consumers with surcharges. In Utah, the major utility opposes self-generating and limiting pollution. The American Legislative Exchange Council and the Edison Electric Institute have a nationwide campaign against net metering. (The EEI has issued a report calling alternative energy sources “disruptive challenges” for the industry.) As SolarTribune.com puts it, “Utilities prefer a model where generation is distributed, but ownership is not.” Ending net metering would likely end home owners generating their own power.
BY DENNIS MYERS
FIGH T ING T HE
FUTURE Large utilities struggle with small homeowners over rooftop solar
PHOTO/ERIC MARKS
Who’s supporting whom?
“We’re not sure
how we’re going to work it out yet,” said Jeb Bateman. “Might split up the family a little while.” Bateman and his wife have three children, all school age. Imagine uprooting them in the middle of the school year. Nor is it particularly easy for Bateman himself. He’s lived in Nevada his entire life, and now faces moving to Roosevelt, California, as a result of a decision by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission that caused the firm of SolarCity to leave the state. Bateman, a SolarCity field consultant, has accepted a transfer to Roosevelt. And there are perhaps thousands of Jeb Batemans in Nevada, working for solar firms. On Dec. 11, Fortune magazine posted an article, “Why Nevada Has Emerged As An Energy Tech Hub.” It began, “Every month another company, it seems, announces plans to build a factory in Nevada to churn out the future of energy technology. A year and a half ago, Tesla started building a massive battery factory.
It has since been joined by a number of other high-tech companies involved in battery recycling, a futuristic transportation system, and electric cars.” It’s the kind of publicity for which most states would happily pay. Even with the overstatement of the state’s accomplishments, it made economic development in Nevada sound like the coming thing. Thirteen days later, Fortune reported again on the same topic, but the tone this time was very different. “Why SolarCity Plans To Ditch Nevada,” was the headline, followed by the lead sentence: “The battle over rooftop solar heats up in Nevada, a state that has long been friendly to the clean energy technology.” It was the kind of publicity most states would happily pay to avoid. And there was more to come. Shortly before the end of the year, at the request of Warren Buffett’s monopoly NV Energy utility, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission voted 3-to-0 to reduce the payments homeowners receive for generating solar power and sending it back to the grid, the practice known in law as net metering. NV Energy had claimed,
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which owns NV Energy, has been working state legislatures, courts and utility rate-setting commissions to put an end to net metering. Buffet has said he is ready to keep building large utilities “as far as the eye can see.” His big victory came in the surprising locale of Nevada, which had been carving out a role for alternative energy in its economic development (“What will replace the casinos?” RN&R, July 29, 2010), and the PUC action sent tremors through green firms across the country. The clean energy site Clean Technica reported, “The Nevada decision sends this signal to both existing and potential rooftop solar customers in all 50 states: Solar deals may look great up front, but you’re going to be left holding the bag sooner or later.” Two leading solar companies pulled out of Nevada. Headlines appeared around the country and even in Europe in both trade and mainstream forums—“How Nevada could cast a shadow over solar.” “Is this sunny state trying to kill solar power?” The dispute even became an issue in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. (Hillary Clinton
“These charges are based on the specific costs that the companies incur to provide electric service to customers who install intermittent, renewable generation.” The utility said non-solar customers were being forced to subsidize solar rooftop users, a claim echoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval, though he said he had not run the numbers. But critics said that while such a situation may someday evolve, it does not exist yet, might never come to be—and that the only study supporting the utility’s claim was an NV Energy study. A study by the PUC itself found otherwise, and a legislative study found a financial gain for non-solar customers. The PUC also slapped homeowners with a fee for access to the grid. While exact figures are hard to come by yet, it appears that the regulators have more or less eliminated the incentive for homeowners to go solar, in spite of a state policy encouraging solar. The likely monthly fee alone will be more than the average savings. In addition, the commission applied the new fee structure to homeowners who had already been lured—by the
FIGHTING THE FUTURE continued on page 12
OPINION
|
NEWS
|
GREEN
|
FEATURE STORY
|
ARTS&CULTURE
|
ART OF THE STATE
|
FOODFINDS
|
FILM
|
MUSICBEAT
|
NIGHTCLUBS/CASINOS
|
THIS WEEK
|
MISCELLANY
|
JANUARY 21, 2016
|
RN&R
|
11
