London And New York Mayors Say Cities Must Divest From Fossil Fuels In Guardian Op-Ed

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Over the weekend, two of the world’s most influential mayors – Bill de Blasio (mayor of New York City) and Sadiq Khan (mayor of London) – took to the pages of the British newspaper The Guardian to urge cities around the world to divest from companies that extract fossil fuels.

The op-ed came ahead of the Global Climate Action Summit, a gathering of world leaders designed to discuss issues surrounding climate change and other environmental issues. The summit starts on Wednesday in San Francisco.

[wds id=”3″]

The mayors wrote:

We believe that ending institutional investment in companies that extract fossil fuels and contribute directly to climate change can help send a very powerful message that renewables and low-carbon options are the future. If we want to fund the scale of transformation the world needs, we must foster sustainable investment and use the power of institutional investors, such as pension funds.

According to the article, less than 2% of London’s pension fund – which totals $7.1 billion – is invested in fossil-fuel generating companies, with more divesting coming this year (including eliminating investments in oil companies Shell and BP). New York has just begun its own divestment and expects to be completely divested within five years, the article reports.

Instead, New York touts the fact it has increased its use of solar energy six-fold since 2013 and which is the result in part from a push from the state’s governor Andrew Cuomo as well as de Blasio’s own progressive policies on the subject.

Both mayors acknowledge that divestment is not necessarily a straight path, and that there will be twists and turns along the way. But in urging their fellow mayors to divest, they say they are setting an example for country governments to follow:

We believe we can demonstrate to the world that divestment is a powerful tool and a prudent use of resources. And that, together, our cities – New York, London and many others around the world – can send a clear message to the fossil fuel industry: change your ways now and join us in tackling climate change.

I’d like to applaud de Blasio and Khan for their forward-thinking ways and their attempts at moral suasion through the press. Here’s hoping that coming out of the Global Climate Action Summit that even more cities will follow their lead and divest from fossil fuels.

More:

As New York and London mayors, we call on all cities to divest from fossil fuels

Report: New Jersey Community Solar Program Could Spur $800 Million In Economic Benefits

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Vote Solar released the results of its analysis of New Jersey’s planned 450 MW community solar program, in which it found the program could spur as much as $800 million in economic development.

Specifically, the report says the community solar program will create:

1,778 sustained full-time jobs during construction and an additional 41 sustained full time jobs associated with operations and maintenance.
$414.7 million in earnings for those employed.
$797.9 million in local economic benefits for the state, excepting local tax revenues.
$3.3 million from property tax revenues in the first year alone.

[wds id=”3″]

“Community solar holds a promise to expand access to affordable energy while creating jobs and growing New Jersey’s clean power sector,” said Pari Kasotia, Mid-Atlantic Director for Vote Solar. “These tangible economic benefits are an important part of the Garden State’s leadership and success in building a modern, 21st-century clean energy system that equitably serves everyone. We are glad to see New Jersey implement policies that align environmental goals with economic goals.”

The report was prepared by Vote Solar, a nonprofit organization working to lower solar costs and expand solar access across the U.S. They used the Jobs and Economic Impact (JEDI) Model developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to reasonably estimate the employment, earnings and economic impacts from the construction and operation of the solar energy facilities that could be expected if New Jersey adopts the minimum target of 450 MW over a three-year period. 450MW has been recommended by many stakeholders as the minimum program size necessary to drive investment in the state’s clean energy sector, achieve economies of scale, ensure all New Jersey’s communities gain access to community solar, and meaningfully contribute to the state’s 2030 clean electricity requirements.

The new community solar program, recently passed into law by the New Jersey legislature and signed by Governor Phil Murphy, is one of numerous attempts to get the state back on track after several years of languishing solar development in the Garden State. Murphy, who took office in January, campaigned strongly on a platform of clean energy and has made it one of the top priorities of his administration.

It’s nice to see New Jersey returning to prominence, having at one time been the No. 2 solar state in the Top 10 solar state rankings from the Solar Energy Industries Association – behind only California.

New Mexico Relieves Its Solar Consumers From Unfair, Untenable Fee

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Saying the fees were arrived at using flawed studies and without taking into account the advantages that solar customers bring to the grid, the New Mexico Public Resources Commission eliminated Rate 59, a fee previously charged only to solar customers and cost them, on average, $300 per year.

The New Mexico PRC also said it would start a rulemaking proceeding to ensure that the state law concerning solar surcharges was followed in future. At issue was the charge levied by Southwestern Public Service, the state’s largest regulated utility.

[wds id=”3″]

As Vote Solar reported:

In its final order, the Commission identified a number of problematic aspects with Rate 59:

The standby rate is not cost-based;

SPS’s study of the costs and benefits of distributed generation was “riddled with errors” and unreliable; and

SPS did not calculate the benefits of distributed generation to the SPS system.

Predictably, Vote Solar and its supporters were thrilled with the decision:

“Today’s decision is a victory for SPS customers who finally have the freedom to choose affordable solar and the opportunity to save money on their electric bill. Ending this punitive charge is especially welcome news for low-income and fixed-income residents who spend a higher portion of their income on utility bills, yet for years were unable to lower their bills with solar because of this charge,” said Rick Gilliam, Vote Solar’s program director of DG regulatory policy and expert witness in the proceeding. “We applaud Hearing Examiner Carolyn Glick and the Commission for reviewing the facts and putting control over energy bills back in the hands of New Mexico residents.”

Vote Solar reports that thanks largely to Rate 59, Southwestern Public Service had only 112 solar customers in its service area. The removal of the charge, it believes, will allow solar to expand well beyond those households and will bring New Mexico more in line with its fellow Southwest states like Nevada and Arizona.

Duke Energy Requests Temporary Retail Net Metering Revival In South Carolina

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Duke Energy is asking the South Carolina Public Services Commission to reinstate retail net metering until a compromise can be reached on raising the current 2% cap, an issue that has roiled the South Carolina solar industry over the past 12 months.

The utility has joined a group of solar stakeholders to extend the net metering program through March 15, which they allow time for the development of long-term recommendations through the ORS-led collaborative process and for legislative consideration of any consensus recommendations, including any recommendations related to future net metering policies or programs.

[wds id=”3″]

As Duke Energy spokesman Ryan Mosier explains:

We believe this temporary extension of net metering will provide consistency and certainty for customers and the renewable energy industry in South Carolina while Duke Energy and other interested stakeholders develop recommendations for consensus, common-sense policies that are fair and balance the interests of all who call South Carolina home: solar providers, energy companies, and customers who use solar energy – and those who do not.

The list of co-petitioners reads like an all-star list of clean energy advocates in the state: the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy, SunRun, on behalf of the Alliance for Solar Choice, and the South Carolina Solar Business Alliance.

The petition would appear to be something of an about-face for Duke Energy, which consistently has opposed raising the 2% net metering cap that it hit earlier this year, helping to scuttle a compromise bill that had worked its way through the legislature and seemed well on its way to passing until the state’s utilities got involved. Instead of passage, the bill was scuttled using an obscure parliamentary tactic that changed the type of bill it was and thus the vote margin necessary for passage.

As a result, the simple majority that had planned to vote for the bill was no longer enough for the bill to pass, and so the compromise died.

It’s unclear what compromise Duke Energy is seeking, although their comments about protecting “customers who use solar energy – and those who do not. (emphasis added)” indicate there may be some charge suggested to mitigate the mythical cost shift that utilities claim occurs when solar customers don’t pay their fair share of transmission costs.

National studies have concluded that a “cost shift” only happens when solar penetration reached 10% of the total electricity generation (something happening in only five states in the country, and South Carolina isn’t one of them). Even at the 10% level, those same studies peg the cost shift at fractions of a penny per kWh.