Could DTE Proposal Kill Rooftop Solar In Michigan? Advocates Say Yes

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Just when you think Michigan is finally getting its solar act together, utilities like DTE Energy hatch plans to destroy rooftop solar in the state, at least according to the advocates that talked to our friends at Inside Climate News.

Becky Standfield, the Midwest director for Vote Solar, isn’t one for hyperbole. She’s one of the most level-headed solar activists I’ve known. So to see her say this to ICC was both startling and arresting:

“It is very clear that DTE is trying to put a dagger in the heart of rooftop solar in Michigan.”

Whoa. And that’s not even the strongest comparison advocates are making.

[wds id=”3″]

A little background on this fight is necessary here. Traditionally, net metering is done at a the retail rate – a one-to-one exchange. But under current Michigan law, there is no set level of compensation set, meaning utilities can pay solar consumers at whatever rate the Public Utilities Commission will allow.

Right now, DTE Energy has a proposal before the PUC that will allow them to compensate solar consumers at the wholesale rate, which would be approximately 75% under retail rate.

How can they justify this highway robbery? Well, it’s the zombie lie of the “cost shift” again raising its ugly head. In case you’re not familiar with this well-worn piece of nonsense (and utilities across the country cling to it like a drowning man to a life preserver), the “cost shift” argument holds that solar customers don’t pay their fair share of grid upkeep. Therefore, the “costs” of their energy self-production are then passed on to non-solar consumers.

And as I’m sick of writing, it’s complete bunk. The cost shift doesn’t happen until a state gets at least 10% of its electricity from solar power (which only occurs in five states now, and Michigan is not one of them). Once the cost shift happens, it’s only fractions of a penny per kilowatt-hour – so even at its worst it’s a marginal cost at best.

A 75% cut in compensation for electricity exports would essentially kill rooftop solar in Michigan, mirroring, says Inside Climate News, the screeching halt a similar proposal in Nevada visited up on that state’s solar industry.

That was so bad that it took two years before the solar industry was even a shell of its former self, and three years later the rooftop solar industry is still recovering.

Michigan should learn from Nevada’s example. It’s PUC should reject DTE Energy’s ridiculous request.

More:

High-Stakes Fight Over Rooftop Solar Spreads to Michigan

Regulatory Certainty Could Help Stabilize Michigan’s Market

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Stability and certainty. Those two elements are always critical to building and expanding a solar industry. And a third element is supporting the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (or PURPA, as it is most often known in the solar industry.

Well, late last week Michigan decided to combine all three elements in their Public Service Commission (MPSC) finalized the rates and standard contract terms for Consumers Energy, one of Michigan’s biggest investor-owned utilities. In the ruling, they set the rates the utility must pay for energy and capacity from solar energy facilities and other independent power producers under PURPA.

Now that they know what rates they’ll be receiving, the ruling is expected to promote more investment in solar energy in the state, which has fallen well behind other Midwest states like Illinois and Minnesota when it comes to solar development.

[wds id=”3″]

“The MPSC’s ruling provides much-needed certainty in the Michigan solar market, which has experienced delayed project development and a lack of substantial solar industry investment,” said Sean Gallagher, vice president for state affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association. “With these rates in place, Consumers Energy can begin investing in cost-effective solar projects to the benefit of its customers. However, there is still more work to do, and how the MPSC rules on Consumers’ Integrated Resource Plan will play a big role in determining the future of clean energy in Michigan.”

With 118 megawatts (MW) installed, enough solar energy to power 18,500 homes, Michigan ranks 33rd in the country for installed solar capacity. Today’s decision paves the way for a dramatic increase in installed solar capacity in Michigan. Michigan’s solar market is forecast to add 605 MW of solar over the next five years, a 347 percent growth rate, the 5th largest percentage growth of any state. These forecasts could grow substantially, depending on the MPSC’s ruling on Consumers Energy’s IRP.

The MPSC originally determined Consumers’ avoided cost rates in an order issued last November, but was reviewing additional feedback provided by the solar industry, Consumers Energy and other stakeholders. Under federal law, these costs must be at or below the cost the utility would pay to buy power on the market or generate from its own portfolio. The MPSC also ruled that it will revisit a range of related issues in Consumers’ pending Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceeding that will be concluded sometime next year.

Michigan Advocates Decry Utility’s Net Metering Successor

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

DTE Energy has a love-hate relationship with renewable energy.

On the one hand, they’ve pledged to be coal-free by 2040, at least in part through investments in wind and solar. On the other hand, they’ve suggested a replacement for retail net metering that has solar advocates screaming “Foul!” from the rooftops.

[wds id=”3″]

Midwest Energy News reports that DTE Energy has suggested a new reimbursement scheme that would compensate its solar customers at the lower – often significantly lower – wholesale rate of power. In addition, they have discussed imposing fixed fees on solar customers to fulfill the mandate that every utility has to toss up the fake “cost-shift” subterfuge to maintain their membership in the Utility Club.

(The Utility Club is not a real thing. But this lie, this ridiculous slander, about the cost shift, is unfortunately all too real.)

For those of you who have not heard me rail against this before, here it goes:

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.

My good friend Becky Stanfield, senior director of western states with Vote Solar, summed it up pretty succinctly for Midwest Energy News, saying:

DTE Energy is clearly using the distributed generation tariff to try to discourage people from going solar. It’s pretty outrageous.

Yes it is, Becky. Yes. It Is.

More:

Advocates call Michigan utility’s net metering replacement ‘outrageous’