Yay, Freedumb! AZ, OK Utilities Succeed In Breaking Demand For Home Solar

[hatrack]

EDIT

The Salt River Project, a regional utility in Arizona, imposed a new rate structure on “self generation” customers earlier this year as a way to recoup some of the costs generated when customers sell power back to SRP. In the year immediately prior to implementing the fees, SRP received an average of 600 new rooftop solar applications per month. Today, it receives 25 applications per month, SRP spokesman Scott Harelson said.

The utility’s decision to implement demand and power distribution charges spurred one of the country’s largest rooftop solar panel installers, Solar City, to relocate 85 of its 800 Arizona workers out of state. The company also filed suit, calling SRP’s charges “anti-competitive.” “New rooftop solar applications in SRP territory plummeted roughly 95 percent after SRP announced its terms for new solar customers,” Solar City spokesman Nate Watters said. “We seek to get those fees removed and look forward to showing that utilities cannot exploit their monopoly power to try to eliminate competition from rooftop solar.”

EDIT

In Oklahoma, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill into law last year after lawmakers worried that rooftop solar customers were not paying their share of the cost for the utility to maintain the power lines. Oklahoma Gas and Electric has fewer than 300 rooftop solar customers among the 750,000 it serves. Since the law took effect, that number has not been growing.

“Inquiries have chilled dramatically,” Steve Wilke, founder of rooftop solar installer Delta Energy and Design in Norman, Okla., said. “People just think that there’s no way solar can work for me now. It’s an uphill battle for us.” Some of the fees and other charges are complicated, and it can be difficult for people interested in installing solar panels to understand the costs.

EDIT

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-fees-weaken-rooftop-solar-demand-19667

[leveymg]

1. Dumb isn't free. We pay for it. This is a great example.

[djean111]

2. Hopefully, this will increase the effort for better storage and smaller local grids.

Having these giant grids is too expensive, and too open to failure from weather and hackers, IMO. I believe they are becoming outmoded.

[hunter]

3. Yep. In the long run this may turn out badly for these utilities.

Instead of customers selling electricity back to the utility, these utilities could end up losing customers entirely.

Every home in my neighborhood has a phone line and cable television line installed. I'm guessing maybe one in three people don't use either, and very few people use both.

As the price of energy storage is reduced customers may simply drop off the grid entirely.

[kristopher]

4. The utilities haven't won yet.

This move isn't just in Arizona, it is in almost 30 states IIRC.

In any case, we are in the middle of the dust-up in Arizona, and after a lot of initial successes, the in Arizona and elsewhere the trend now seems to be going against the utilities.

Lawsuit Against Salt River Project Over Solar Fees
SolarCity claims SRP’s new solar rate plan is an attempt to eliminate competition. SRP claims the rates have “reasonable business justification.”

by Julia Pyper
November 10, 2015

A federal court judge in Arizona has ruled that SolarCity’s legal challenge against Salt River Project can move forward, dismissing the Arizona public utility’s request to block the case.

The October 27 decision throws out SolarCity’s claim for antitrust money damages, as well as claims seeking other non-monetary relief. But it allows the solar installer’s core monopolization claims to proceed.

The lawsuit was filed in response to a new pricing plan Salt River Project (SRP) approved in late February that adds a fee of about $50 per month to all leased and owned solar systems, primarily through a new demand charge. Net metering was also reduced from the retail rate of $0.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to $0.05 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The agreement provided a 20-year grandfathering-in period for all systems installed prior to December 8, 2014, when the new rates were first proposed.

“We believe SRP designed the new terms to make rooftop solar uneconomical, to exclude competition, and to punish consumers who want to adopt rooftop solar,” said Nate Watters, a spokesperson for SolarCity....
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/arizona-court-advances-solarcity-lawsuit-against-salt-river-project

Florida is an interesting case. After years of utilities obstructing policies that would have helped the adoption of solar, the people launched a ballot initiative to write into the state constitution the right for microgrids to compete with utilities. The utility immediately launched their own similarly titled initiative that was designed to 1) bleed away support for the grass roots effort, and 2) enshrine into the state constitution the right of utilities to continue their anticompetitive practices.

The grass roots effort has almost hit the number of signatures it needs, but the utility's version only has about 1/6th the required signatures.

Floridians for Solar Choice is a grassroots citizens’ effort working to help more homes and businesses to generate electricity by harnessing the power of the sun. Florida is one of only four states that prohibit citizens from buying electricity from anyone other than a utility, along with North Carolina, Kentucky and Oklahoma (Georgia’s Governor Deal signed a third-party solar bill into law in May 2015 but this map hasn’t yet been updated to reflect that change). This prohibition limits customer choice and blocks the growth of this abundant, clean homegrown energy source. Because we believe the choice to harness solar power should be available to everyone, our coalition is working to place a constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot that would give Florida’s families and businesses the right to choose solar power.

http://www.flsolarchoice.org

versus

Consumers for Smart Solar Warns Florida Voters:
Shady Solar Amendment Would Create a Solar Tax on Every Electric Customer While Gutting Consumer Protection

Orlando, Fla. – Consumers for Smart Solar – a diverse, bipartisan coalition of business, civic and faith leaders – today issued the following statement from its co-chairs regarding the Florida Supreme Court approving Floridians for Solar Choice’s amendment language for the 2016 General Election ballot.

“It is unfortunate that the Florida Supreme Court approved the ballot language being pushed by Floridians for Solar Choice,” said Dick Batchelor, co-chair of the Consumers for Smart Solar. “We caution Florida voters about this disingenuous solar ballot measure that favors big out-of-state solar companies instead of Florida consumers. We simply cannot allow this seriously-flawed amendment to pass. This special interest amendment puts Florida consumers, and especially our seniors, at great risk of fraud and abuse.”

“Today’s ruling by the Florida Supreme Court is disappointing,” said Jim Kallinger, co-chair of the Consumers for Smart Solar. “During the oral arguments, we heard it straight from the lawyer for Floridians for Solar Choice that their group would support a ‘standby charge…uniformly applied.’ This ‘standby charge’ is just another term for a tax or fee on everyone, including those who do not choose solar. We urge voters to take a look at the true meaning behind the Shady Solar Amendment that would allow for unfair subsidies, overcharging and rip-offs.”

Recently, the Consumers for Smart Solar released a video that outlines the “Fine Print” of the ballot language by Floridians for Solar Choice. To view the video and see how the Shady Solar Amendment would hurt Florida consumers by writing special benefits for one industry in the state constitution, please visit http://bit.ly/1MGVml8.

https://smartsolarfl.org/consumers-for-smart-solar-warns-florida-voters/

https://smartsolarfl.org