Home » Archives for Frank Andorka » Page 74

Net Metering Is NOT A Subsidy, No Matter How Loudly Duke Energy Says It

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Duke Energy penned an opinion piece for The State boldly arguing the cost-shift, which I have to admit is a gutsy move.

It’s particularly gutsy since, as I’ve written so many times my fingers can type it without any guidance from my brain, THE COST SHIFT ARGUMENT IS A LIE.

To make my life easier later in this piece, I’ll just note here that the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) says South Carolina receives 0.21% of its electricity from solar sources, a fact that, as always, is essential when trying to kill the zombie lie of the cost shift.

Only the South Carolina legislature stands between Duke Energy’s zombie “cost-shift” lie and its solar consumers.

SolarWakeup’s View: The entire opinion pieced penned by Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, president of Duke Energy South Carolina, is a brazenly brilliant piece of anti-solar propaganda wrapped up in a concern-troll blanket and foisted on the poor readers of The State, South Carolina’s statewide newspaper. It is one of the first times I’ve seen a utility executive himself go on record banging the drum for the zombie lie of the cost shift.

[wds id=”3″]

As I have shouted into the abyss so many times I can’t even count them all, the cost-shift is complete nonsense. I should have this explanation as a macro so I don’t have to type it every time. Let’s review:

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.

The entire idiotic thing is based on the (false) portrayal of net metering as a subsidy, which it is not. what net metering is is a free-market solution to the “problem” of solar array overproduction. In other words, if I produce a product, the utility should have to pay me fair market price (retail rate) for it. That’s the whole basis of capitalism, after all – Invisible Hand and all that (yeah, I’ve read Adam Smith).

And the other thing Duke Energy doesn’t want you to notice is that they are a state-sponsored monopoly that receives actual subsidies guaranteed by the state, so…you know…that’s a thing that is happening, too.

I’ll give Ghartey-Tagoe one thing: He’s not wrong when he says Duke Energy isn’t anti-solar. Turns out, they’re very much pro-solar – as long as they are the ones that are producing it.

More:

Why should the rest of us pay to subsidize people who choose rooftop solar power?

South Carolina Tries, Tries Again To Reach Solar Compromise

Are We Harping On South Carolina Net Metering? Yes, Because YOU Are

Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill

South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal

South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack

Could California Become The First State To Require Solar? Yes.

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: California could become the first state to mandate all new-build homes be powered by solar energy.

The state’s energy commission (CEC) will vote this week on the proposal, which would require virtually all new-build residences to be outfitted with solar modules.

Reports say around 20% of new builds in California are currently solar-ready.

SolarWakeup’s View: The California Energy Commission could completely revolutionize what it means to go solar if they approve rules later this week that would mandate solar modules be included on all new-build homes three stories or higher.

According to a report in The Independent, a British newspaper, the mandate is part of a push to make all new homes in the state “net-zero,” meaning they produce no emissions and produce the amount of energy they need. The rules also stress a shift away from natural gas and other fossil fuels to renewable-energy-produced electricity.

[wds id=”3″]

As with most things solar, California is moving to the cutting edge, apparently feeling that you can’t do great things piecemeal.

The plan is not without opposition, including from builders who say the additional construction costs would add around $30,000 to your average California house and could put housing out of reach of more lower- and middle-class potential homeowners.

But even the critics conceded that over the life of the system, homeowners would save $60,000, making the addition of a solar array to the home a net profitable addition.

Honestly, I don’t know how I feel about this. As a pro-solar advocate, of course, I think it’s a great idea. It will certainly help a state solar industry that has been a bit buffeted by new time-of-use rates and federal tariffs. And as we all know, as California’s solar market goes, so goes the national market.

On the other hand, affordable housing is a serious issue in California and beyond, and if mandated solar in California does push people out of the housing market, is it worth it?

I’m torn and would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

More:

California set to become first US state requiring solar panels on new homes

Madam Secretary: Don’t Just Spout Pro-Nuclear Talking Points

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: One of my favorite TV shows, CBS’ Madam Secretary, used an entire episode about an energy summit they are attending to spout pro-nuclear talking points.

Ironically, the discussion starts because one character is arguing strongly that natural gas needs to be included in a “Future of Energy” pavilion and that nuclear has too big a space.

Meanwhile, solar and wind – the two sources that actually are the future of energy – are shunted off into an “annex.”

Seriously, my jaw dropped as I watched the episode. The show’s writers are usually so careful to portray the state of the world accurately – how could they get the energy state of play so spectacularly wrong?

SolarWakeup’s View: If you know anything about me, know this: I grew up wanting to be a member of the State Department. I wanted desperately to be a diplomat. I did Model United Nations for seven years in high school and college. I wanted to be a diplomat.

Alas and alack, it wasn’t to be (so now you’re stuck reading me here at SolarWakeup). But it does explain why I love the CBS’ Madam Secretary so much – and why I’m so hurt and dismayed when I discovered the latest episode might as well have been written by nuclear energy lobbyists.

[wds id=”3″]

The plot isn’t so much about energy as it is about climate change, but one of the important subplots is an energy trade show the State Department will be attending to sell other countries on purchasing their renewable energy equipment from the United States. An initial look at the model pavilion is appalling enough – nuclear has by far the largest section of the display, and solar and wind are, I kid you not, shunted off into what they call an “annex.”

An annex, for Pete’s sake. An annex for an industry that employs more people than the coal and oil industries combined.

But that’s not even the worst of it. Then a character for whom I have the greatest respect argues that nuclear is clean, produces no more waste than the size of a football field and that nuclear power has never killed anyone when it’s melted down (see Three Mile Island and Davis Besse). These argument are repeated throughout the show without a hint of doubt about nuclear as an energy alternative.

Here are just three arguments I would have made had I been in the room with the Secretary, and these are just off the top of my head:

It may be “clean,” but nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build and maintain. By the time new plants are built, who knows what revolutionary breakthroughs we’ll have made in truly clean energies like solar and wind? Do we really want to invest in technologies that will be obsolete by the time the plants are built?

It may be a small amount of waste, but it’s RADIOACTIVE. Raise your hand if you want to live next to a nuclear energy waste disposal unit? Mind if we put one next to your tony Georgetown duplex, Madam Secretary? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Plus, if you’re building more plants, that means more waste. It won’t stay football-field sized for long.

“It hasn’t killed anyone yet” should never be an argument to invest in a potentially dangerous energy source. After all, there’s always a first time, isn’t there?

You know, what I’m realizing is that while it’s easy to dismiss these dangerous arguments as inside baseball that no one cares about, it’s also really easy for them to get into the mainstream, unevaluated and unchallenged. So when shows like Madam Secretary take on complex issues like this and get it wrong, it’s on us to push back.

More:

Madam Secretary (CBS)

Madam Secretary (Wikipedia)

South Carolina Tries, Tries Again To Reach Solar Compromise

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: After utilities snuck in the back door and stabbed a bill that would have eliminated a nonsensical net metering cap to death, solar advocates are trying one last Hail Mary in an attempt to save solar jobs in the Palmetto State.

As you know (if you read SolarWakeup, anyway), South Carolina’s House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor a bill that would have eliminated the state’s insanely low 2% net metering cap.

Then the utilities did the aforementioned stabbing, lobbying for (and getting) the bill to be changed into a “tax increase,” which would have required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate. It did not get the votes, and it seemed like net metering – and to a large extent, the solar industry – in the state was dead.

But on Wednesday night, Amendment 9 was attached to the House Budget bill and passed. Amendment 9 wouldn’t eliminate the cap, but would raise it from 2% to 4%.

SolarWakeup’s View: There is one last South Carolina solar compromise working its way through the state’s House of Representatives. It’s a final chance to save the solar industry in this session.

If you’re a regular reader of SolarWakeup (and if you’re not, you should be), you know the chicanery surrounding the state’s attempts to eliminate its insanely low 2% cap on net metering. The bill overwhelmingly passed the House but was scuttled in the Senate, thanks to the last-minute machinations of the state’s powerful utilities.

But if at first you don’t succeed, sneak a South Carolina solar compromise into the budget bill and hope it survives the House-Senate conference committee (at least I think that’s how that goes).

[wds id=”3″]

That’s the strategy the House is currently trying, putting something called Amendment 9 into the budget bill that is now going to conference committee. It’s not as good as the bill last month – it won’t eliminate the net metering cap entirely – but it will double the cap from 2% to 4%, keeping the state’s burgeoning solar industry alive for at least another year.

“Last night’s vote is an important and welcome step forward for energy freedom in South Carolinam” said Thad Culley, Regional Director at Vote Solar. “Recent months revealed both the enormous support from residents, businesses, and organizations across the political spectrum for clean energy options, lower utility bills and 3,000 solar jobs in South Carolina, and the lengths that utility monopolies will go to undermine all three.

“We thank House leaders and Rep. Ballentine for working across the aisle to pass a commonsense measure to keep solar shining in South Carolina,” he added. “We now look to lawmakers in the budget conference committee to take all solar measures across the finish line and ensure that solar can remain a bright spot in South Carolina’s economy.”

It’s not perfect, but at least it’s something. Now get on the phones and let legislators know you want the South Carolina solar compromise kept in the final bill.

More:

Net Metering Gets a Lifeline in South Carolina

Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill

South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal