Home » Nevada

Nevada PUC Denies Apartment Dwellers Rooftop Solar Access

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Nevada has long had a love/hate relationship with the rooftop solar industry. Despite having one of the highest insolation rates in the nation, it’s rooftop solar segment experienced a near-death experience when the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC) decided to eviscerate net metering at a December meeting in 2015.

After nearly killing off the segment, the legislature and governor came to their senses and reinstate net metering under a modified program, but serious damage was done – such damage, in fact, that the rooftop industry is still recovering from it.

On the other hand, the populace overwhelmingly passed into law a constitutional amendment (which will need to be ratified again in two years) that would put the state on the path toward a 50% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) by 2030. What that means, at least to most solar observers, is that despite hemming and hedging at the state government level, the people of Nevada overwhelmingly want solar energy.

Which brings us to the latest PUC decision.

[wds id=”3″]

According to the Nevada Independent, the PUC decided against opening a rulemaking exercise in the case of an apartment owner with more than 9,000 units in the state who requested the right to put solar modules on the roof of their buildings in an effort to supply their tenants with clean, renewable energy.

Alan Molasky, which runs the property management firm Ovation MM, expressed his disappointment to the Independent:

“I am disappointed that the PUC has denied our petition, but I do understand the reasoning,” he said in an email. “They are concerned that they have the statutory authority under Nevada law. Fortunately, this can be fixed. I know that many of our incoming legislators and our Governor-elect are very pro-clean energy, so I am hopeful we find a way to enable us with the authority to move forward soon.”

Molasky says he had been prepared for this decision and is already trying to organize efforts to change the law that would allow the PUC to make decisions about such matters, which he rightly believes falls under their purview.

But the decision is maddening. Here is a company that wants to do the right thing and provide clean energy to people who might not otherwise have access to it, and here’s the Nevada PUC deciding to protect its own behinds by not making a decision. Their cowardice is multiplied by the fact that notoriously anti-rooftop-solar utility NV Energy brought its own pressure to bear on the PUC as this decision was being made.

Here’s hoping Molasky and his team won’t stop fighting so they can get this ridiculous decision by the PUC reversed legislatively.

More:

Proposal extending rooftop solar to apartments rejected by utility regulators

Voters Deliver Split Decision On Parallel RPS Ballot Initiatives

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Tom Steyer is waking up this morning to the realization that when you get involved in politics – particularly clean energy politics – sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

In Arizona and Nevada, Steyer had worked tirelessly to support two constitutional amendments, one in each state, that would have cemented the goal of a 50% renewable portfolio standard by 2030 into law. And just like the rest of the country, the results from those initiatives turned out to be a mixed bag.

In Nevada, voters decided to pass the amendment with 60% of the vote, paving the way for solar to flourish in the state a mere three years after the Public Utilities Commission tried to destroy the rooftop industry by unceremoniously (and suddenly) eliminating net metering without warning.

[wds id=”3″]

Now the vote in Nevada isn’t final. Voters will have to approve it again in two years for it to take effect. But with 60% of the vote in favor, it appears likely that it will find its way to approval in two years and then into the state’s constitution. The state’s current RPS is 25%, putting it well behind other states with equal insolation rates.

On the other hand, Steyer’s attempts to pass a similar amendment in Arizona went down in flames. The ballot initiative faced heavy opposition from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, which spent hand over fist to defeat Proposition 127, which would have done for Arizona what Question 6 could do for Nevada.

In a particularly provincial, gloating manner, an spokesman for the issues group funded by APS told Arizona Central that Arizonans wouldn’t have their energy decisions dictated to them by outsiders all the way from … California.

“Arizonans support clean energy, but not costly, politically driven mandates,” said Matthew Benson, chairman of the opposition group funded by APS’ parent company. “Arizonans support solar power and renewable technology, but not at the expense of an affordable, reliable energy supply. Arizonans prefer to choose our own energy future rather than have it dictated to us by out-of-state special interests.”

So while the rest of the country is trying to figure out what effects the midterms will have on national politics, clean energy advocates are looking at the results in Nevada and Arizona and asking themselves the same questions. Only time will tell which of these outcomes dictate a trend (if, in fact, either of them do).

More:

Arizona voters reject clean-energy measure Proposition 127 by large margin

SEIA’s Closing Argument To Nevada: Yes On Question 6

SEIA’s Closing Argument To Nevada: Yes On Question 6

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

By the time you read this, polls will have already opened on the East Coast. It’s your opportunity to shape the country in which you live, so get out today and vote like your life depends on it.

In several states – Arizona and Nevada leap immediately to mind – clean energy is on the ballot. In both states, constitutional amendments are on the ballot that would raise the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to 50% by 2030. Both amendments have been hard fought contests, with progressive billionaire Tom Steyer fighting hard against entrenched utility interests (especially in Arizona) to put the issue before the voters.

And one day before the vote, the Solar Energy Industries Association and Vote Solar (in the personages of Abigail Ross Hopper and Adam Browning) penned an op-ed urging Nevada voters to support Question 6, which is how the amendment appears on the ballot.

[wds id=”3″]

The op-ed starts out with a strong clarion call, appealing to voters on both sides of the aisle:

Nevada families will head to the polls tomorrow and cast their ballots in a host of hotly contested races. But whether you’re a Republican, Democrat or Independent, there are two things all voters agree on: They want clean air and they want prosperity.

Clean air and prosperity. That’s a winning combination of issues. Instead of framing it as strictly a solar issue – on which there is still a divide between those who understand solar and those who have yet to learn about it – SEIA and Vote Solar decided instead to frame the issue as being a pocketbook and overall health issue. And that messaging, I must say, is brilliant.

I’ve been critical in the past of SEIA for what I saw as its difficulty in finding its political voice, particularly at the state level. But the more I see of the new, aggressive tone of the asssociation – and its increased willingness to fight for issues at the state level – the more impressed I’ve become.

More:

Yes on Question 6 Means Less Pollution, More Jobs

SEIA Broadens Its Reach By Making It Easier For Rank-And-File Installers To Join

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

In the past, some installers have grumbled that the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is in thrall to installers and manufacturers who have big money to spend and that it didn’t care about the little guy. They would then point to the dues structure and suggest one of the reasons they refused to join was the expense was beyond what their bottom lines could handle.

Well, I’m here to say that SEIA must have heard the criticism, and it’s making changes to accommodate more of the rank-and-file installers that said they couldn’t join before.

SEIA announced the roll out of an updated membership structure, that introduces a Basic level membership for just $750 per year, and a new Premium level of membership – Watt membership – for $4,500 per year. These changes lower the barriers to join SEIA for smaller companies and for those just entering the industry, aiding SEIA’s advocacy efforts as the voice of the entire U.S. solar industry.

[wds id=”3″]

“By expanding our offerings, we can bring more solar companies into the SEIA fold, ultimately strengthening our voice in Washington, D.C. and in state capitals across the country,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA’s president and CEO. “This is a significant shift in strategy for SEIA that will not only help us boost our influence, but also make us work more democratically, creating opportunity for companies of all kinds to engage in their own advocacy.”

The new structure provides Basic level members with access to valuable tools and materials, including SEIA’s Federal Tax Manual, webinars, the SEIA Sphere, and Division calls and meetings.

Additionally, SEIA is introducing a new online form on its website to make it quicker and easier to join the association. The “Join SEIA” landing page has also been updated with key information to make it more streamlined and easier to access.

These updates are effective immediately for new members. For current members, the new membership structure will take effect upon their 2019 renewal date.

This change also includes new Membership Referral and Ambassador Programs, which allow SEIA members to earn discounts on their dues, event tickets, sponsorship opportunities and more, by recruiting new companies to join SEIA.