By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: Duke Energy penned an opinion piece for The State boldly arguing the cost-shift, which I have to admit is a gutsy move.

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: Duke Energy penned an opinion piece for The State boldly arguing the cost-shift, which I have to admit is a gutsy move.

It's particularly gutsy since, as I've written so many times my fingers can type it without any guidance from my brain, THE COST SHIFT ARGUMENT IS A LIE.

To make my life easier later in this piece, I'll just note here that the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) says South Carolina receives 0.21% of its electricity from solar sources, a fact that, as always, is essential when trying to kill the zombie lie of the cost shift.

[caption id="attachment_9765" align="aligncenter" width="1280"] Only the South Carolina legislature stands between Duke Energy's zombie "cost-shift" lie and its solar consumers.[/caption] SolarWakeup’s View:  The entire opinion pieced penned by Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, president of Duke Energy South Carolina, is a brazenly brilliant piece of anti-solar propaganda wrapped up in a concern-troll blanket and foisted on the poor readers of The State, South Carolina's statewide newspaper. It is one of the first times I've seen a utility executive himself go on record banging the drum for the zombie lie of the cost shift. As I have shouted into the abyss so many times I can’t even count them all, the cost-shift is complete nonsense. I should have this explanation as a macro so I don’t have to type it every time. Let’s review: The argument goes like this: Retail-rate net metering, a program under which solar customers are reimbursed for the excess electricity they produce, pushes extra costs on to non-solar customers because solar customers aren’t paying for grid upkeep. What the utilities don’t want you to notice, of course, is that solar customers also relieve congestion on the grid during peak production times, which saves strain on the transmission and distribution lines. So while they may not be paying for upkeep directly, solar production saves wear and tear, which ultimately saves the utility money in the form of repair costs. You’re welcome. I should note here that while there is a minor cost-shift, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates the shift only happens when a state passes the 10% mark for solar-electricity generation. And I should also note that even at more than 10%, the shift is so small you’d need the Berkeley Lab’s $27 million electron microscope to see it. The entire idiotic thing is based on the (false) portrayal of net metering as a subsidy, which it is not. what net metering is is a free-market solution to the "problem" of solar array overproduction. In other words, if I produce a product, the utility should have to pay me fair market price (retail rate) for it. That's the whole basis of capitalism, after all - Invisible Hand and all that (yeah, I've read Adam Smith). And the other thing Duke Energy doesn't want you to notice is that they are a state-sponsored monopoly that receives actual subsidies guaranteed by the state, so...you know...that's a thing that is happening, too. I'll give Ghartey-Tagoe one thing: He's not wrong when he says Duke Energy isn't anti-solar. Turns out, they're very much pro-solar - as long as they are the ones that are producing it. More: Why should the rest of us pay to subsidize people who choose rooftop solar power? South Carolina Tries, Tries Again To Reach Solar Compromise Are We Harping On South Carolina Net Metering? Yes, Because YOU Are Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: California could become the first state to mandate all new-build homes be powered by solar energy.

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: California could become the first state to mandate all new-build homes be powered by solar energy.

The state's energy commission (CEC) will vote this week on the proposal, which would require virtually all new-build residences to be outfitted with solar modules.

Reports say around 20% of new builds in California are currently solar-ready.

SolarWakeup’s View:  The California Energy Commission could completely revolutionize what it means to go solar if they approve rules later this week that would mandate solar modules be included on all new-build homes three stories or higher. According to a report in The Independent, a British newspaper, the mandate is part of a push to make all new homes in the state "net-zero," meaning they produce no emissions and produce the amount of energy they need. The rules also stress a shift away from natural gas and other fossil fuels to renewable-energy-produced electricity. As with most things solar, California is moving to the cutting edge, apparently feeling that you can't do great things piecemeal. The plan is not without opposition, including from builders who say the additional construction costs would add around $30,000 to your average California house and could put housing out of reach of more lower- and middle-class potential homeowners. But even the critics conceded that over the life of the system, homeowners would save $60,000, making the addition of a solar array to the home a net profitable addition. Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this. As a pro-solar advocate, of course, I think it's a great idea. It will certainly help a state solar industry that has been a bit buffeted by new time-of-use rates and federal tariffs. And as we all know, as California's solar market goes, so goes the national market. On the other hand, affordable housing is a serious issue in California and beyond, and if mandated solar in California does push people out of the housing market, is it worth it? I'm torn and would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. More: California set to become first US state requiring solar panels on new homes

Over the past few weeks, a lot of the dialogue has been about my comments about utilities joining SEIA in some fashion. And this article summarizes my primary opposition to ANY utility involvement in our trade association and the trend continues in today’s news stories. I want you all to know that I am not sitting here throwing stones to stir things up, I am sincerely hoping for the industry to go into the direction that I believe is in all of our best interests. I want every solar company and trade group to be successful and thrive.

Why Utilities Matter. Here are the talking points from the Duke Energy President in South Carolina. “Duke has invested $6billion in renewables.” “Duke is anti-subsidy.” “Net metering is a subsidy.” All three comments are either outright false, misleading or intellectually dishonest. Taking an oped and trying to drive a wedge into public support by misleading the reader bothers me. Duke may have invested $6billion into renewables but did so mostly through its deregulated subsidiaries because they were allowed to compete. Duke is not anti-subsidy, because if they were they would not saddle their ratepayers with power plant risks, early cost recovery for unbuilt plants and fuel cost risk. Is this a company that you believe would have a voice in your trade groups that advances your business?

The Florida Solar Swamp. First the good news. Frank speaks with Sunnova’s CEO about their announcement to enter the Florida market. This comes on the heels of Sunrun taking the leap of faith and asking the PSC for a declaratory statement. More competition on residential solar will be good for a State like Florida where almost every homeowner wants solar. Keep your eyes on the adoption rate, it will surprise you. On the other hand, we have the start of a giant shady deal in Central Florida. The Florida municipal power companies have contracted in a PPA with NextEra on a 225MW transaction, made up of three 75MW solar farms. We will be looking into this in much greater deal but here is what we know already. Only 7 developers were invited to bid, this was not an open RFP. Of those 7, only two were invited to negotiate and they were not the lowest bidders according to sources. It may also be true that NextEra used FPL’s solar farms, which are paid for using rate base, as a statement of qualifications to win this deal. That raises all sorts of monopoly/deregulation firewall alarm bells. It is also very likely that NextEra has a PPA rate for FMPA lower than the cost of solar to FPL customers in the monopoly rate based solar. This makes my point for me that rate based solar should be put out for bid because the private market because competition is good for everyone. More on this soon, but it’s shady thus far.

Who Cares About NEM? The CT net metering fight worries me. From a press perspective, the media coverage of it has been slim to none. If my inbox is an indication, it almost appears that some groups have given up on the net metering fight in a State that sends an all blue congressional delegation to Washington DC. We can’t just worry about legislation that fixes a state solar market, we have to attack the markets and stop them from taking away the number 1 core value for any solar advocate, full retail rate net metering. Net metering is the rising tide in solar, without it, forget getting the support for interconnection processes that enable large scale RPS or PURPA markets.

Deep Energy State. I indulge in some tv watching and Madam Secretary is one of those Sunday night DVR specials. Normally I pay half attention as I type this newsletter but last week, I sat in awe as the natural gas CEO was in the Secretary of State’s office arguing against renewables and nuclear. Put aside the renewables piece, this was a lobbied influence campaign between natural gas and nuclear as they both argued to be the transition plan. Imagine playing the public influence campaign so thoroughly that you are pitching tv writers on your talking points.

NY ISO ‘Loves’ Solar. First, it’s the lightbulbs. Second, blaming solar for demand reduction is exactly why people consider net metering a subsidy. Demand reduction reduces the cost of infrastructure to ratepayers and therefore is a network benefit.

Opinion

News

 

Have a great day!
Yann

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: It appears Florida is finally getting serious about becoming a viable solar market. Two weeks ago, the Public Service Commission decided, against all odds and the expectations of some seasoned solar observers, to allow third parties to own solar arrays without becoming regulated utilities.

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent What Happened: It appears Florida is finally getting serious about becoming a viable solar market. Two weeks ago, the Public Service Commission decided, against all odds and the expectations of some seasoned solar observers, to allow third parties to own solar arrays without becoming regulated utilities.

In the wake of the decision, at least one major residential solar company has decided to execute a Florida market plan it’s been working on for years and waiting for precisely the right moment to go in—and they’ve decided now is that time. To discuss this development is the the CEO of that company—Sunnova—John Berger. Join us on June 21st in Chicago for SolarWakeup Live! to talk about all things happening in Illinois. Stay tuned for tickets and more info. More: