By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent
What Happened: John Tynan, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, penned an excellent op-ed for The State, expressing his … disappointment with the decision by the legislature to smother the solar industry in its crib by not removing South Carolina net metering caps. Some choice quotes:
- “H.4421 would have saved more than 3,000 solar jobs and ensured that the South Carolina solar industry will continue to thrive.”
- “It’s clear utilities will stop at nothing to continue to keep making profits. And when customers install solar panels, utilities lose revenue.”
- “… the utilities expect to get reimbursed for the electricity they’re not selling if I use solar energy.”
- “I will not give up on the citizens and legislators who support H.4421. We will continue to fight.”
SolarWakeup’s View: I don’t get writer’s envy often anymore. After making a career out of this for the past 25 years, I’m pretty sure I’ve shown I know how to do this for a living and help support a wife, two kids, three cats and a dog on the proceeds.
But sometimes someone writes something I wish I had, and so is the case with John Tynan’s powerful piece about the South Carolina net metering debacle I have written about – but I lack the perspective of a homegrown South Carolina resident.
Tynan, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, wrote an op-ed for The State in which he excoriated the legislature for killing a bill that would have eliminated arbitrary residential net-metering caps that passed by overwhelming majorities just last week.
In case you didn’t read our coverage, I’ll summarize what happened next this way:
UTILITIES: OVERRIDE THIS VOTE ON SOUTH CAROLINA NET METERING OR WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CAMPAIGN(S) AGAIN!
Some South Carolina legislators cowering in the corner: “OK, sure, whatever you say, bosses.”
Which is how it came to pass that a net-metering cap bill became a “tax increase” bill, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass the House – which it failed to do by nine votes.
Tynan wrote:
H.4421 recognized the irrationality of the utility argument and supported customer choice and the free market. It would have prevented non-solar customers from having to repay utilities for lost profits because other customers installed solar. This is what is fair.
And he ended his piece on what sure seems like, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, a note of hope:
While Tuesday was a dark day for solar in South Carolina, today I’m looking for the silver lining. I’m grateful for the foresight of many of our key leaders in the Legislature who supported solar jobs and lower rates for customers. I’m grateful for their dedication to protecting our future by protecting our rights and our energy choices, and I remain optimistic that we will ultimately come to an agreement that will protect South Carolina’s ratepayers and strengthen our clean-energy future.
As stirring as Tynan’s words are, he can’t do it alone. If you live in South Carolina or know someone who does, get on the phone right now and fight … for your right … to go solar.
More:
If we use solar, why should utilities get to charge us for electricity we don’t use? (The State)
Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill