Infographic: How Archaic Utility Rules Stall Local Solar

John Farrell
November 01, 2012 | 3 Comments

Many people expect that solar power will dramatically expand once it bursts through the cost barrier and becomes less expensive than grid electricity. But archaic utility rules can effectively cap local solar development at just 15% of peak demand. Fortunately, pioneering states like Hawaii and California are exploring ways to lift the cap and bring utility rules into the 21st century.

This post originally appeared on ILSR’s Energy Self-Reliant States blog.

Lead image: Stop, wait, go via Shutterstock

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

3 Comments

ANONYMOUS
November 5, 2012

No one has mentioned the issue of load balancing. The fluctuating nature of both solar and wind create an energy issue that is not addressed by by more tax intervention. Utilities, if they are serving the needs of the public, need predictable sources of energy to create a reliable supply. Neither solar nor wind, as they are presently structured, really fill this need for reliability. There are ways to achieve some form of effective load balancing for both solar and wind, but these do involve significant added expense. Insisting that utilities commit themselves to increasing percentages of an unreliable supply without answering the load balancing issue in terms of steady reliable supply is not reasonable or realistic. Effective energy technology is not a matter wishing for solutions, it is an issue where complex details need to be faced and worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

Daniel Ferra
November 3, 2012

Hello, To sign this Petition, go to Facebook, Daniel Ferra, Palm Springs Ca.
California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate, the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over-produces more than what is needed for his home.
The Feed-in Tariff can not be earned if you receive a rebate from your utility company for solar panels or if you are participating in other utility solar incentives programs such as the CSI. It also can not be earned if you are participating net metering, which only pays one time a year under the AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act.
Our Feed-In Tariff should mirror Germany and Japan, where residential FIT is 30 cents - 50 cents per kwh.
The 4 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.
The California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax-paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed. Residential home owners should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
California resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in their electric bill, as shown by a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.

Gregory L Smith
November 3, 2012

How would it be possible to get a copy of the Hawaii rules in their law, for solar energy generation? Oklahoma state regulation via the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, is fudging and won't allow solar into their market without Significant Restrictions, to how solar pays back electrical power to the grid, forcing residents who use solar to ONLY accept CREDIT towards future bills and never getting paid for excess production. This is simply unfair and dis-incentivizes solar when it is our key ticket towards National Independence from fossil fuels and especially, coal-fired production, as well as utility-developed Wind energy, that is currently over-charging customers, so they can reap an unfair margin on their investment, paid exclusively to investors and not used for the sole benefit of consumers. That makes for unfair competition and is against fair consumerism and may be against Interstate commerce rules if taken to the extreme...since energy produced locally, does not remain at the local production location and thus, can be argued to be Interstate commerce, via distribution during peak hours...Hopefully this will change at state level. I would like an Attorney General to rule on this since it is a significant impediment to fair competition in energy sourcing. So if you have access to the link, I'd appreciate a copy! Thanks! ~Gregor Smith OKLAHOMA

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. His latest paper,...