Help Massachusetts Kick Utility Stooges In The Teeth
By Chip Martin, Special to Solar Wakeup
As if I needed proof (and I didn’t), SolarWakeup readers are the smartest readers in the industry.
After my column on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) yesterday, BFOS (Best Friend Of Solar) TASC, The Alliance for Solar Choice, provided me with a real-life example of how insidiously subtle solar’s opponents can be.
On Tuesday, the Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony from municipal leaders, solar advocates and lawmakers to discuss potential fixes to the laughably low net-metering cap of 3%. The pro-solar crowd argued — rightly — that the low cap was unnecessarily limiting the amount of solar development that can take place in the state.
Matt Murphy at the State House News Service, a Boston-based private wire service that keeps tabs on Massachusetts state government, summarized the suggested fix this way:
Rep. Frank Smizik and Sen. Anthony Petruccelli have filed legislation (H 3901/S 2019) to scrap the fixed net-metering cap and replace it with a time cap that would allow all qualified projects to be approved until Dec. 31, 2016.
The Smizik-Petruccelli bill would also create a special commission to study the long-term viability of net metering in Massachusetts and report back to the Legislature before the end of next year.
Smizik said lifting the cap was critical to meeting Gov. Deval Patrick’s goal of installing 1,600 megawatts of solar power in Massachusetts by 2020 ……. while helping the state reach its target of 15% renewable energy by the end of the decade. Some municipalities wanting to pursue financially viable solar projects have been “stymied and stalled” by the net metering cap.
This, of course, is too much like right, which is why the utility has its own proposed solution (again I turn to Murphy’s excellent reporting):
Sen. Michael Rodrigues has filed a competing bill (S 2030) that would maintain the fixed cap and increase it to 4 percent. Rodrigues, however, said his bill would also save ratepayers money by introducing a competitive bidding process for large-scale solar installations, similar to what has been done in Rhode Island.
Ron Gerwatowski, senior vice president of National Grid, said the large utility supports the Rodrigues bills, estimating it could shave $1 billion off the $6.5 billion price tag for ratepayers over the next 20 to 25 years to subsidize solar development.
Right. And if you believe the $1 billion will actually go back to the ratepayers, I’ve got a traffic study about the George Washington Bridge I’d like you to read.
I tried to do a quick search to see who has given money to Rodrigues’ campaign but came up empty (I’m amazed there’s not an easily accessible version of OpenSecrets.org for state-level politicians). Don’t be fooled by his biography, which says he was recognized with a Friends of PACE Award — it’s not that PACE (it’s this one: Parents Alliance for Catholic Education).
This may seem like a classic David-vs-Goliath battle, with National Grid on one side and a small group of solar advocates on the other. But not to worry — there are national groups who realize what’s at stake here, and they’ve joined the fight. The Solar Energy Industries’ Association (SEIA) has weighed in, as has the indispensable The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC). TASC is actually on the ground in Massachusetts, fighting the good fight and supporting the local opposition to Rodrigues’ bill.
TASC told SolarWakeup:
The proposed solar customer charges would limit consumer energy choice and slow solar growth, not to mention create a disincentive for solar and other renewables.
The utilities in Massachusetts oppose rooftop solar because they profit from expanding their antiquated infrastructure; rooftop solar is sited locally and reduces the need for more transmission and distribution lines, or large power plants.
Exactly. Distributed generation, which remains the future of the solar industry in my opinion, calls into question the whole point of utilities (which, I’d like to add, are not free-market corporations — they are state-regulated monopolies. Tell that to your crazy, FOX News-watching uncle who keeps telling you solar needs to compete in the “free market.” Then duck — you’d hate to get exploded head all over you.)
The next step is for the committee to issue its report on the bill, which I will watch closely. Net-metering is the battleground in the solar industry this year, and we have to be ready to fight to ensure it stays in place at appropriate levels.
This isn’t theoretical: According to The Solar Foundation, Massachusetts supports 6,400 solar jobs, mostly in installation (Murphy reports 8,400 jobs). As I wrote yesterday, that’s your livelihood at stake. Isn’t that worth fighting for?