Home » South Carolina

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.

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

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

Americans Tell Gallup: Develop More Solar, Please

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Gallup’s annual Environment survey indicates that Americans want to develop more alternative energy sources instead of traditional fossil-fuel generation, to the tune of 73%. (Psst…Gallup….Lynn Jurich called and would like her conclusion back, please. Thank you.)

In contrast, only 25% of the country is worried about the availability or affordability of energy in this country.
And finally, more than half of Americans want to prioritize environmental conservation over fossil-fuel energy development (which may mean that, for now, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is safe from oil derricks).

SolarWakeup’s View: All I keep hearing is how much Americans want to develop more solar energy. Poll after poll indicates that, including what I refer to as “the famous 90% poll” I’ve been hearing about since I joined the industry in 2011. Lynn Jurich of Sunrun posited as much in her latest thought-leadership piece.

The latest Gallup Environment survey is no exception.

According to the poll’s findings, 73% of Americans want the United States to wean itself of traditional fossil fuels and pour more research into alternative energy sources like solar and wind. And more than 50% prefer to protect the environment over more fossil fuel exploration.

So why does solar still find itself fighting an uphill battle in state after state to get itself established (in South Carolina, for example, where they were SO close to expandinig the industry but decided to kill it instead – sorry, my jaw is still dropped on that one)?

The answer is pretty easy, of course, and you know it deep in your soul – the coal, oil and gas industries are deeply entrenched in the political and utility infrastructure, and those interests are fighting a savage rearguard action to maintain their own power.

[wds id=”3″]

But it’s a fight they will lose. The American people keep speaking, loudly, against their monopoly. Eventually, those voices will drown out the shrieking death throes of fossil fuel interests.

In the meantime, however, solar can’t just sit back and wait for this to happen. Americans have the attention spans of drunken gnats, so it’s incumbent on us to keep fighting to get the word out about the benefits of solar energy – as a job creator, as an environmental safeguard and as a national-security bulwark. I’ve always said that if we could activate the general public, solar would win this battle easily.

So let’s do it already – there are groups out there with whom an alliance to make this happen just makes sense. Make it happen in your community, and I’ll do what I can to make it happen in mine.

Deal?

More:

U.S. Energy Concerns Low; Increasing Supply Not a Priority (Gallup)

What Would Consumers Choose? (Solar. They Would Choose Solar.) (SolarWakeup, courtesy of Sunrun)

Solar United Neighbors