Myths And Facts About Net Metering For Solar Energy - MediaMatters

[Bill USA]

this is a great article. Excerpting a few paragraphs from it is painful. Please read the article and check out their links. It's really substantive.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/14/myths-and-facts-about-net-metering-for-solar-en/205519

Net metering policies, which allow utilities' customers to send energy from solar panels on their homes into the electric grid in exchange for a credit, are being threatened by efforts in several states to roll back or dismantle the policies -- most of which are bolstered by anti-solar myths from utilities and fossil fuel interests that are being parroted in the media. Here are the facts about net metering.

MYTH: Net Metering Is Costly

◾The Helena Independent Record published a letter from the executive director for governmental affairs at NorthWestern Energy, who wrote that net-metered electric generation from solar panels "is not efficient and very expensive" and "will only increase the cost of electricity to other customers on the system." [Helena Independent Record, 1/6/15]

◾The American Enterprise Institute's Benjamin Zycher wrote in a FoxNews.com op-ed that the adoption of net feeds "more expensive power" into the grid, "and prices are forced up." (FoxNews.com, 9/24/14)

~~
~~

FACT: Net Metering Brings Significant Economic Benefits

Environment America Study: Economic Benefits Of Net Metering Outweigh Costs. A report from the Frontier Group for Environment America details the different benefits that arise from net metering. Net metering provides economic benefits to the electric grid, including savings from reduced electricity transmission (net metered solar energy is provided on-site), avoided capital and capacity investment, reduced financial risks, increased grid resiliency, and avoided environmental compliance costs. The report also explains benefits for "the environment and society at large," including avoided greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, and increased economic development and job creation. (Environment America, Summer 2015)

Analyses By Multiple Utilities Found Benefits Outweigh Costs. Several studies done by utility and non-utility groups alike found the net benefits of net metering to be approximately equal to, or greater than, its costs.

(more)

[PoliticAverse]

1. The main issue with net-metering is what utilities must pay for the power. Is it

the wholesale electric price or the retail price. If it is true as the article claims that utilities have found
that net metering's benefits outweigh the costs the utilities would be supporting it on their own.

[kristopher]

2. I can see how the article begs for an explanation of why they oppose solar.

Here you go.

It isn't the fossil fuel industry per se; it is the centralized generation utility business model that is being destroyed, and it is happening even at the present level of solar penetration. The large generators sign long term contracts for most of their generation, but they hold back maybe 30-40% of their capacity for meeting peak demand requirements. The peak demand capacity is contracted on a short term basis via competitive bidding. The grid operator projects there will be X demand and sends out a call for bids to meet that demand. The generating entities send in an amount they can provide and the price they need to get for it.
The grid operator starts with the least expensive bid and then aggregates up the price ladder until the quantity desired has been met. The highest price accepted is the price received by all those whose bids were chosen.
This has traditionally been the income that pushed most of those large fossil or nuclear assets into the black.
Most generators' bids are based on their fuel costs, with solar and wind doing likewise and bidding into this market at zero. So, aside from the amount of fossil they displace in this peaking market, they also lower the price of the final bid accepted and reduce income for all the traditional sources of generation.
Google /the duck curve/ for more information.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/14/myths-and-facts-about-net-metering-for-solar-en/205519#comment-2254837714

So it is really a question of who is the economic loser:
A) Ratepayers and solar owners/businesses or
B) the utility's investors.

It is part of the package for a regulated monopoly to have a guarantee against competition, but when their technology is obsolete (as is the case) how far should the protection extend?

Since distributed generation is the future we are unquestionably moving to, do the protections afforded the monopolies still apply?

ETA: Some utilities are carrying this logic a step further and discontinuing all demand side conservation and energy efficiency programs, with an intent to set surcharges on people who dramatically reduce their footprint.
Should they be able to make people continue to pay who want to go totally off grid when batteries are cheap enough (probably by 2018)?