Net Metering Is NOT A Subsidy, No Matter How Loudly Duke Energy Says It

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.
  • Duke Energy

    Only the South Carolina legislature stands between Duke Energy’s zombie “cost-shift” lie and its solar consumers.

    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.

    [wds id=”3″]

    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

    Zombie Lie Returns; Time To Kill It Again

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened: This fella right here – Lucas Davis,an Associate Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley – trotted out the zombie lie about the solar-customer cost shift again on something called “The Energy Institute at Haas” blog.

    • If he would have picked up the phone and called down to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, they could have cautioned him against spreading this garbage.
    • How many times to we have to debunk this before reputable people stop trafficking in this idiocy?
    • I haven’t been able to figure out yet who funds the Haas School, but whoever it is needs to get a better handle on what its people are putting out (unless the goal is to misinform the public on a host of public policy issues – more on that in a second).

    zombie

    SolarWakeup’s View:  (Me, to Yann): “Didn’t I just write this story?”

    [Yann to me]: “No.”

    [Me to Yann]: “Are you sure? This feels so familiar.”

    [Yann to me]: “Look, it’s a zombie lie story, so yeah, you’ve written it before. But this is a different person telling the zombie lie – and it’s not even a utility? He’s an associate professor and everything.”

    [Me to Yann]: (Look of quiet desperation) OK. I’ll write it. This is going to be what’s engraved on my tombstone, isn’t it? ‘Frank Andorka, Killed By The Zombie Lie’

    [Yann to me]: (Grin)

    [wds id=”3″]

    Sadly, this is an article I could probably write in my sleep. Another pinhead – this time Lucas Davis, an associate professor of economic analysis and policy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley – took to The Energy Blog At Hass to peddle the notion that when solar customers join the electricity-production mix, they shift costs to non-solar users. In his example, California non-solar ratepayers are paying $65 more per year to “subsidize” solar rate payers, who are compensated for their extra electricity by the utilities.

    It’s the zombie lie concerning “cost-shifting” again, which, as I have shouted into the abyss so many times I can’t even count them all, is complete nonsense. I should have this explanation as a macro so I don’t have to type it every time. As it is, I’m just going to cut and paste it from my story on Kentucky 12 days ago. If you’re bored reading it, maybe tell Davis and his ilk to stop arguing lies. 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.

    I can’t tell for sure, but from this post and the rest of the posts on Haas School’s blog on energy, it seems like they have an agenda, namely to turn back the clock to the 19th century when all electricity was produced from fossil fuels.

    I’m getting so tired of fighting this zombie lie – does anyone have a suggestion about how I can kill it for good? I thank you, and my dog thanks you.

    More:

    Why Am I Paying $65/year for Your Solar Panels? (The Energy Institute Blog at Haas) [Me, at my computer screen while I’m typing this]: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YOU’RE NOT, YOU LYING LIAR! (breathes deeply)

    Zombie Lie Informs Kentucky’s Attempt To Kill Its Solar Industry

    South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack [Me]: I’m beginning to feel like MY soul is under attack.

    Bonus:

    Feast your eyes on this electron microscope. It’s amazing what $27 million will buy.