Home » Archives for Frank Andorka » Page 72

Two VOS Studies Vary Widely: Can You Spot The Major Difference?

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:Utility Dive has an excellent piece describing the 88% difference in two VOS studies, one in Montana and one in Maryland.

The Maryland VOS study, prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, values solar highly. The Montana VOS study, prepared by the state’s largest utility, values solar less highly. Can anyone spot the difference?

While the Utility Dive analysis goes far deeper into the specifics, it’s no surprise that these reports turned out the way they did.

Is the image of the sun setting on a utility pole too heavy handed? I worry it’s a little heavy handed.

SolarWakeup’s View: Let’s get this out of the way first: Go read the Utility Dive explanation of two value-of-solar studies – one in Montana, the other in Maryland – which come to two deeply different conclusions about how solar should be valued when it comes to net metering and other compensation structures. It is excellent, and it is detailed. I could not do a better job myself.

But I want to look at one factor that UD slides over that may be the single-biggest determining factor in why, according to the two studies, solar is 88% more valuable in Maryland than in Montana. That factor is who paid for the study.

[wds id=”3″]

In Maryland, the study was prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, a supposedly independent body whose job it is to balance the needs of ratepayers and utilities to come to an equitable balance between those two seemingly divergent interests. As such, it has no particular agenda to push; it can afford to look at as many facts as possible – and take as many stakeholder views into account as possible – before rendering its decision.

Montana’s study, on the other hand, was paid for by the state’s largest utility, in whose interest it is to value solar less highly because of its own vested interest in keeping solar penetration limited. After all, the more solar penetration there is, the fewer people are dependent on the utility to supply electricity. That means a smaller customer base, which means fewer profits, which means unhappy investors. When there’s a study being done by one of the party’s involved in a dispute, it can’t surprise anyone when the study comes out in that party’s favor.

I don’t mean to imply either study is perfect, nor am I suggesting that who paid for the study was the sole factor in outcome. But I am suggesting it plays a significant role – and is something activists on the solar side should account for whenever one of these VOS studies comes out against us.

More:

How two value-of-solar studies add up to no clear value of solar (Utility Dive)

Zombie Lie Moves Into The Tennessee Valley, Results In Unnecessary Fee

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), in an action that seems antithetical to its entire mission, imposed a grid-access fee on its customers, aimed specifically at solar users because of the zombie lie of the cost-shift.

For a utility whose whole existence is owed to the idea that poor, rural people deserve low-cost electricity, the TVA’s grid-access fee seems to be the height of hypocrisy.

The TVA servers around 9 million people across seven states.

The TVA USED to be about electricity for all. Now it’s about “electricity, but we’re going to charge you a random grid-access fee for it.”

SolarWakeup’s View: This flippin’ zombie lie is back again, this week popping its head up from the depths of hell in the Tennessee Valley.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), for those who don’t know, was established as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program, in part to bring electricity to rural areas of seven states. These areas weren’t served before because it was considered too expensive for traditional utilities to string wires to many of these areas off the beaten path.

It revolutionized the United States and gave rise the New South. But now, the TVA is relying on the zombie lie of the “cost shift” to penalize anyone on their grid that wants to install solar with a usurious “grid-access fee.”

[wds id=”3″]

TVA President Bill Johnson gave away the game when he started talking about how “more able” people are able to afford self-generation technologies like solar. As the Chattanooga Times Free Press quotes Johnson:

“Some consumers, particularly the more able ones, can invest some solar panels or other resources, but they still rely on the valley-wide transmission system for backup power,” Johnson said. “The result is how we bill for electricity can be out of sync with the actual costs of getting electricity to some consumers.”

How many times do we have to kill this damn lie about how solar consumers supposedly “shift” costs on to non-solar users? (Forever, Frank, you idiot – that’s the whole point of zombies…..)

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.

As it always is, this maneuver is nothing more than a power and money grab by a rapacious utility – and it looks like the zombie lie going to succeed (again) in eating into the savings solar consumers should have from installing their systems.

More:

TVA adopting grid access fee in move to impose more fixed costs on power bills

Can the Battery Storage Industry Avoid The Same Mistakes As The Solar Industry?

Battery storage is roughly where the solar industry was in the early 2000s. It’s a tiny market now but it is exploding and the technology is evolving rapidly. There is money saving potential for customers but there are risks for incumbent energy providers who are pushing back.

The standards are changing like quicksand and investor funds are pouring in to take advantage of this inevitable market. The rapid “hockey stick” growth that we are seeing in the energy storage industry is likely to be even more accelerated than the growth of the solar industry.

[wds id=”3″]

All the pieces are in place for a number of successful companies throughout the value chain, but as with the solar industry, there is going to be some spectacular train wrecks along the way as well as some companies that just do not have the staying power to succeed.

On this week’s Energy Show, we talk about the following eight mistakes that companies in the solar industry made that hopefully storage companies can avoid:

Mistake #1: Constraints on critical upstream components (Li or Co = Si?)
Mistake #2: Live by incentives and die by incentives
Mistake #3: Releasing half-baked products
Mistake #4: Ignoring software
Mistake #5: Assuming electricity rates will always go up
Mistake #6: Not paying enough attention to safety issues
Mistake #7: Selling commodity components, not bankable systems
Mistake #8: Inevitable black swan events

Nevada Solar Soars After Legislators Got It Right (After The PUC Got It So Wrong)

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:A recent Vote Solar note on Nevada revealed that the industry has come roaring back after legislative fixes in 2017 cleaned up the mess that lawmakers and the Public Utilities Commission created in 2016.

Most specifically, Assembly Bill (AB) 405 went into law and caused applications for NV Energy’s SolarGenerations program to spike 11-fold in just one year.

The bill also provided the right atmosphere to encourage solar installers to hire more workers, including one company that increased its workforce 300%.

Once state legislators stopped gambling with the future of solar in the state, Nevada’s industry has come roaring back.

SolarWakeup’s View: Well, better late than never, right?

After the Nevada Public Utilities Commission threw the state’s solar market into disarray with its precipitous decision to eliminate net metering in 2016, the rooftop solar industry all but stopped in the state. National companies like Vivint, Sunrun and (then) SolarCity fled the market in protest.

Two years later, advocacy group Vote Solar says legislative fixes have helped the industry rebound and thrive once again.

[wds id=”3″]

As Rosalind Jackson of Vote solar writes:

(NV Energy’s) SolarGenerations applications went from 287 in 2016 to 3,308 in 2017, with most applications coming in the second half of the year, after AB405 was signed into law. This represents an 11-fold year-over-year increase and early monthly data from 2018 indicates continued growth.

Perhaps the best news from Vote Solar’s note is the reports of significant hiring in a state that needs jobs. Here’s what Larry Cohen, branch manager for Sunrun, a national solar installation firm with offices in Las Vegas, told Jackson:

Before the ink was dry on AB 405 – Nevada’s landmark Solar Bill of Rights – I started rehiring dozens of our workers who I was forced to lay off just 18 months earlier because of anti-solar net metering changes. We hope legislators across the country look to Nevada and see that there is incredible voter demand for solar choice. All states should take strong steps to protect access to clean, affordable local energy.

It’s a great thing to see the state with some of the highest insolation rates in the country getting its act together again on solar. Other states should see Nevada’s lost two years as a cautionary tale against changing solar policy recklessly without looking at all of the potential cosequences.

Like I said, better late than never – but those are two years of growth that Nevada solar industry won’t ever get back. And that’s a shame.

More:

Nevada Solar Applications Through the Roof Following Passage of Net Metering Bill