The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? ×

Protecting Net Metering: The Civil Rights Movement for Solar Energy

David Hochschild, Solaria
April 27, 2009  |  19 Comments

The California State Legislature has just begun consideration of a little-noticed piece of legislation that figures prominently in the future of solar power in America. California's current net-metering legislation limits the total amount of rooftop solar power that can be connected to the electric grid to no more than 2.5% of the state's total electric load. AB 560, sponsored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), seeks to raise this net- metering cap and unshackle the solar industry from an arbitrary cap.

Thanks to the $3 billion California Solar Initiative and net metering, the Golden State's solar industry has installed more solar power in the last two years than the previous 25 years combined. Because of these policies, California today represents 60% of the solar market in the United States. But with 50,000 solar energy systems now providing clean power in the state, California is expected to hit the 2.5% cap as soon as next year, which could undermine this burgeoning market.

Net metering should be understood as the civil rights legislation for customer-owned solar energy, ensuring that clean power generated by customers is treated equally to conventional electricity from the grid. First created in California in 1995 and now in place in 44 states, net metering allows homeowners and business owners who install solar panels or other clean energy systems to feed any surplus electricity back to the grid for the benefit of other customers. In return, the solar owners receive a credit on their electricity bill at a rate equal to what the utility charges.

This simple idea, which has no cost to the state budget, has helped democratize the electric grid and enabled more clean power generation during peak demand periods — the time of day when electricity is most needed and expensive, and when the dirtiest "peaker" power plants are typically cycled on.

Opponents of net metering have argued against the law in the past on the grounds that either A) the electric grid simply can't support that much solar power coming from so many different locations or B) that net metering unfairly punishes non-solar ratepayers by reducing the amount of money that solar customers contribute to pay for the upkeep of the electric grid. 

In fact, the electric grid is capable of absorbing substantial amounts of solar power.  In parts of Germany, which has installed more solar power than any other nation in the world, solar energy penetration into the electric grid exceeds 30% during peak demand periods and the grid is holding up fine. As for the costs, the savings to the electric system created from distributed solar energy are substantial because the cost of incremental peak power from fossil fuel have increased so much and because more solar power generation at the point of use means the utilities have to spend less money in new transmission and distribution capability. And when the United States finally adopts climate legislation, this financial savings that solar power provides for the electric system will become even greater as the cost of coal, oil and natural gas increase. Solar power may not be cheap but the cost of business as usual is higher.

Just last year, the city where I live, San Francisco, came perilously close to approving a $271 million fossil-fuel burning "peaker" power plant in a low-income, predominantly African-American neighborhood. Thanks to coalition of neighborhood activists and environmental organizations, the idea was ultimately defeated. But fights like these continue in communities across the nation. More often than not, they don't end well for poor communities.

When new fossil-fuel burning power plants are built, it's almost always the poorest parts of town that have to live with the worst of the pollution they create. To help prevent more fossil fuel power plants from being built and shut downs the ones currently operating, we must protect the barrier-busting policies like net metering that are necessary to unlock the full potential of solar energy.  The California State Legislature should build on the solar success of the last few years, resist pressure from opponents of distributed generation and move to lift the net metering cap this year.

David Hochschild is Vice President at Solaria, a solar company headquartered in Silicon Valley, and co-founder of the Vote Solar Initiative, a non-profit solar advocacy organization.

19 Comments

Register To Comment
Dennis Houghton
Dennis Houghton
April 30, 2009
Utilities do not "shut down" base-load thermal systems such as coal or nuclear when demand temporarily drops(2-4AM) or intermittent sources increase (wind blows, sun shines). They simply route excess excess heat to the cooling towers where it is wasted until demand picks up again. The laws of thermodynamics rather than the laws of California are the driving factor. Water under pressure boils at a high temperature.

In the Pacific Northwest we have coal(10%), nuclear(20%), wind(2%) and hydroelectricity(60%). Hydro is the most dispatchable of these sources but constraints due to other uses of the rivers have occasionally caused problems with integrating wind into the system. The big problem was that the BPA dispatchers called the wind farm operators to ask for a temporary shutdown and nobody answered the phone at several of the facilities. High tech indeed. Federal law requires a minimum amount of water in the Columbia for salmon recovery, BPA must comply. BTW. Much of the BPA hydropower is sent to California via a 1000kV HVDC transmission system.

Overall demand reduction will lead to the real shutdown of coal plants. Creating a national FIT would be of significant importance in reducing demand by setting the price target for all energy sources at an artificially high level. High energy prices from every source will quickly level the field for solar PV.

I am not a utility shill or apologist for the fraud of MBA geniuses at ENRON but the fact remains that our electrical distribution system is well maintained and operated and provides reliable low-cost service. Just look at the rest of the world. At my daughter's home in Kiel, Germany the line voltage decreases by 15-20% when the morning demand comes up. I would complain to my local PUD if I had that condition. And they would fix the problem.
Russell Judge
Russell Judge
April 30, 2009
Net metering is only an interim solution if we are to embrace a truly democratic alternate energy society. If one were to look for a bettter solution, one only need to look to Germany with their feed in tariff system. This allows anyone, whether they are a single one family contributor or a large company with a 10,000 acre solar farm, to hook up to the grid. Sure, the cost of electricity would go up a couple cents, but in the not too distant future, when the cost of a barrel of oil goes up to $500, this will be looked upon as a bargain.
Roy Shlemon
Roy Shlemon
April 29, 2009
I would love to be "eco friendly" and produce more solar power. But, alas, as an owner of several, money-losing, avocado acres in San Diego County (competition from Mexco via NAFTA, irrigation water cuts and 50 percent price increases), SDG&E certainly doesn't want the ~100 kw that I could readily produce. What a potential win-win situation: green power production and less use of valuable water resources! However, to produce more than my current net metering would make me a "commercial generator," subject to all the regulations and obstacles that only a bureaucracy could love. Feed-in tariffs, similar to the German experience, would be fine. But what California politician is willing to take on the utility establishments?
Al Rosen
Al Rosen
April 29, 2009
I agree that the CSI cap should be raised or eliminated. But, it's important to understand the deficiencies and inadquacies of the program and to see through the exaggerations and inaccuracy of the CSI's statistics and self-evaluation. An excellent, objective article that does just that can be found at:
http://www.suncentricinc.com/downloads/SunCentric-Business-Perspectives-CSI-Report-April-9-Final.pdf.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
April 29, 2009
Many UTE's are installing digital electric meters that cannot be reversed and can be read remotely. It is done here. How cool is that.
A second meter must be installed at a charge for produced power. That is understandable and would allow for FIT's or whatever. These meters are cheaper to buy and maintain for the UTE's also. I feel they will all move to them soon.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
April 29, 2009
And another few words about solar heating. Using this would lay off much of the heating demand, especially in colder latitudes. There needs to be monitored systems in place to determine the credit to those systems also. Here, FIT's may be appropriate because of widely varied sources for heating fuel conventions. Over half of polluting energy sources could be laid off with solar heating of water and living spaces linked with storage medium. There just is no one well monied industry to push this cart through the halls (and back rooms) of govt's. Responsible representatives would do well to make larger incentives for solar heating venues. Petition and write, right?
Paul Swift
Paul Swift
April 29, 2009
As I understand it, net metering is only one method of implementing a feed in tarriff, in which the surplus home-generated power is used to 'reverse the meter'. One other method is gross metering, where power used from the utility and power sold to the utility are decoupled, and are at different rates. If it is the mandate of the government (state or provincial) and/or the power company to encourage the population to install and use alternate energy systems such as PV, then gross metering can be put in place that permits much higher rates to homeowners feeding the system with that power.

In Ontario, Canada, metering is paid by the main utility at a rate of 80 cents per Kwhr, and the homeowner pays about a tenth of that for power used from the system,butitis, I believe, done on a net metering basis.

I don't have the magic formula for how it should be done. Installation of small systems have a high capital cost per unit of power capacity, on some sliding scale. The utility and/or state have a somewhat limited capacity to pay out at very high rates to foster distributed power production. Times are changing as we speak, but some regional integration as mentioned by a previous post may be part of a workable solution.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
April 29, 2009
Right On, David H.,
Every E.U. I've seen has per diem charges to cover infrastructure and the power rates are added on to that. How is this not compatable with net metering? If production is dispersed more widely it is only a benefit to the Ute's if this power is produced when the demand from air conditioning is highest. I could see that if this peak demand is extremely exceeded they may have cause to temporarily shut down some production facilities. Is this a terrible thing? Save the coal or nuke's. Pollute less. Allow citizen solar power production. It needs to be law.
Bruce Rhodes
Bruce Rhodes
April 29, 2009
Utilities should should pay for excess kw's monthly or yearly. California State Senator Wiggins has proposed SB7 which would make this possible. Communities should take more control of their resources; labor ,food and power and etc. As the grid and meters get smarter so should we. Go Local, Go Local Solar, Go Local Electric Aggregation.
marcus maedl
marcus maedl
April 29, 2009
I wish we would stop shooting ourselves in the foot with such things as arbitrary caps on solar installations, a tax incentive structure - pretty much worthless in times of economic downturns (those mean a general lack of appetite for tax credits and depreciation), unrealistic kWh sales price expectations for solar generated energy, comical levels of bureaucracy with rebate programs, permits, inspections, and so on....

Why make things so complicated? Implement a no cap feed in tariff and get it over with. Works, most cost effectively, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, lowers cost per Watt installed.

Please write your Congressmen and State representatives and urge them to adopt feed in tariffs for renewable energy.

The author of the article has it right when he says "the cost of doing business as usual is higher". True on many levels.....
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 29, 2009
It sounds like an effort by the utilities to retain monopoly control.

How else would they be able to create the "rolling blackouts" to artificially create the justification for rate increases such as the Enron scam.

California legislators need to be reminded of Enron and their handling of the reins of control to the power grid right there in their own state, and not so long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
Paul Richards
Paul Richards
April 29, 2009
Net Metering in California is a start but it is a limited start. The law allows PG&E to "zero out" solar accounts annually. This means that any surplus generated by solar panel owners is confiscated by PG&E. It means that there is no incentive to reduce usage. Also, net metering excludes paying for any state fees or for gas usage. It should be replaced with a feed in tarriff, which is what Germany has. I did not know it was limited to 2.5% which makes about as much sense as the "zero out" provision. Truth is, utilities like health care are public services which should be outside the private profit system that is now tanking all around us.
Stan Smith
Stan Smith
April 29, 2009
With the future of manure digestion systems coming on line for every feed lot in the country, we need to be sure we create rules which will not limit the use of these units. With 9 million cattle in feed lots we need to be sure that we do not cut this energy off the grid with some bad laws. I would challenge every state ruling body to make it clear to the power compnies that you either help or get out of the way so outside sources can come on line without strange regs or pricing. It is my comment that we should be digesting and gasifing much more products into power so that we do not need to build huge power transmission system were we can generate most of our needs locally. Come on lawmakers get with the system and learn how we can create our power locally without adding big coal units, or turning on some old smoke belching out dated unit for short term needs. This country has a huge supply of material which can be converted into energy, such as farm crop residue, invasive weeds such as PHragmites, russion olives, salt cedar, cattails, and brush growing under our power lines which we spend considerable time and money controlling instead of converting into energy either as Elec or Narural Gas. Our stat and Federal lawmakers need to learn about these ideas and make rules which would make it happen, I believe that is why we voted for you to have a job working for US.
william hughes
william hughes
April 29, 2009
For an economically sustainable system, there will always have to be a differentiation between what the electric company pays for its electricity and what it sells it for. As Gregg rightly says, one way is to have a connection fee or line charge (call it what you want) and then simply use the home generation to turn the metre backwards. It is critical that the line charge is the same for the generating and non generating customer so that the power company doesn't start creative book keeping. If the customer needs more power, he simply pays at the same rate as everyone else. If he produces an excess, he gets paid at, say, a 10% less than he is charged. It is highly desirable that he install as big a system as possible for the good of the power network so his fee for net excess power must be worthwhile.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/04/double-metering-its-insidious.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/10/excess-energy-what-to-do.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electric-government-role.html
Dan Barry
Dan Barry
April 29, 2009
In central Texas ( just outside of Austin) the Interconnection situation is as follows:
Monthly fee: $20 ( may rise 50% shortly)
electricity charge: $.10678 per KWH
rebate for generated electricity over monthly consumption: $.0418 per KWH
additional costs for interconnection:
Submission of plans for cogeneration to Coop, 60 days to respond
Inspection of system 30 day lead time and $125 fee for inspection
Access and key to shutdown customers cogeneration at any time and at the Coop's discretion. Liability insurance (not just homeowners insurance) for Coop personnel onsite presence. Liability insurance covering any possible damage to Coop equipment or variance in quality of contributed power.

I would like to see where this falls in normal Interconnection policy and rates and will send the URL of my coop to anyone who responds to me with their data at my email address just_cisco at yahoo dot com.
Gregg Ferry
Gregg Ferry
April 28, 2009
This is how I understand the current net metering law in California: if you generate aggregate excess energy over a 12 month period, you *give* the excess to the utility to which you are connected.

Consumers are not dumb. They will only put in a system which will only generate electricity for their needs. Thus, the law as I understand it, will limit the amount of local co-generation. Worse yet, the co-generation system will not be sized to eliminate the consumers electric bill, but sized smaller to eliminate the most expensive tiers.

A fair way of pricing is to have a connection fee which is proportional to the maximum load or generation. This pays for the infrastructure.

Then, the value of the energy is the value at the point of connection, not wholesale. The ramification of this is not only net-metering but what I term, "transformer net metering", "substation net metering" and on up the delivery chain. This means areas, not just individual customers would be net metered and local generation encouraged. (They naysayers will say that this is a logistical nightmare which is patently not true, as the technology to do this has been available for 30 years. I helped develop it.) Local generation will then reduce the need for infrastructure and lower the cost of its maintenance.
Dezzo Darling
Dezzo Darling
April 28, 2009
No wonder that the US is so slow in embracing Alternate energy, when net metering is on a one to one basis. Distributed generation, as in the case of home Solar, is 3 times more efficient as it cuts out the distribution losses, typically around 65%. There should be no limits, and the payback should be raised so as to encourage more people to bear the upfront investments, otherwise the financial break even period for the investment can be in excess of 10 years, making it impractical.
Pamela Melton
Pamela Melton
April 27, 2009
While I believe that all forms of alternative green energy resources are required to successfully meet the clean energy mandates throughout the United States, to characterize the issue as a "civil rights matter" for customer-owned solar energy is out of context and does not address the question of democratizing the grid. Further, the statement diminishes the sacrifice of individuals who offered their lives to secure a better future for all.

The question of developing a capable grid that can withstand high demand requires policies and rules that promote disinterested oversight, transparency, and accountability.
Martin E. Herzfeld
Martin E. Herzfeld
April 27, 2009
Whom was it who said during the civil rights movement, in 1957? "Grant that all men will come together and discover that as we solve the crisis and solve these problems—the international problems, the problems of atomic energy, the problems of nuclear energy,..."

http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/FreeingTheGrid2008_report.pdf

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 11
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 4
    China Solar Update: Trina Improves, Suntech Scores Extension, Beijing Awaits EU Tariff Decision

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Demand Energy
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Kipp & Zonen
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • Panasonic Eco Solutions North America
  • Ambient Technologies, Inc.
  • Solectria Renewables LLC
  • Reed Exhibitions
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information