Isn’t That Convenient? Duke Energy Launches Community Solar After Net Metering Cap Hit

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Last week during Intersolar North America, Duke Carolinas announced it had hit its 2% net metering cap in South Carolina for residential solar installations, meaning anyone that installs after August 1 will be compensated under less generous net metering rules.

And low and behold, a week later, Duke Energy opens its first community solar farm in the state.

Fancy that.

[wds id=”3″]

I’m sure you can see my two minds fighting with themselves over here. On the one hand, I’m all about community solar. As someone whose house is not optimally oriented to have solar on my roof, I’m on the email every couple of months or so begging my mayor to start a community program in my home town (Hi Mayor Welo!). On the other hand, it’s pretty convenient that the community solar program only starts when most South Carolinians within Duke’s service area won’t be ABLE to put solar on their roofs for full compensation.

Here’s a quotation from Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, state president for Duke Energy in South Carolina, about the “Shared Solar Program” (Duke South Carolina’s community solar program) from the release announcing the program:

This is a great program for any customers who don’t own their residence or are unable to put a solar facility on their property. We estimate that residential customers will earn back their initial payment in credits from the solar array in three years. Customers are not only saving on their electric bill, they are directly supporting a renewable energy future in South Carolina for generations to come.

Huh. “Unable to put a solar facility on their property.” After the utility (and, in fairness, other utilities in the state) put the kibosh on raising the net metering cap a few months ago, thereby putting a lot of people in the position of being “unable to put a solar facility on their property” because it was no longer financially viable.

Now, I’m not suggesting there’s some great conspiracy here. It’s actually a brilliant business decision, looked at from strictly that perspective. I just feel a bit sorry for the South Carolinians who are now at Duke’s mercy when it comes to deciding from where they can buy their solar electricity.

More:

Duke region hits South Carolina net metering cap

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

United States Of Solar: Let’s Stop Florida’s Amendment 1 with Yann Brandt

I join our host, Frank Andorka, to discuss the anti-solar amendment being pushed by the Florida utilities.

On the heels of devastating reporting by the Miami Herald PROVING that Florida utilities cheated and manipulated the system to get the odious Amendment 1 on the ballot, USOS spoke with Yann Brandt, Conergy executive, editor of Solar Wakeup and a Florida resident himself. Brandt outlines where Amendment 1 came from, where it stands now and what work still has to be done to make sure this amendment is not enshrined in Florida’s Constitution.

This is your SolarWakeup for November 20th, 2013

As November comes to a close, please find the October edition of the Solar Marketing Insight. During October, the stories come out about market segments and solar finance. Creating content for public consumption can be a simple and cost effective way to establish your brand presence in the market. SWu helps publications spread the message about great content. If you aren’t sure what your company can write about, shoot us an email, we always look for a way to help.

News

Opinions

Have a great day!

Yann