Tag Archives: Value of Solar

Maryland Releases Its Value of Solar Report. SPOILER: Solar Is Good For The State

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Maryland’s status as a solar state has waxed and waned over the years. Under Governor Larry Hogan, the ups and downs have been rather violent.

On at least two occasions – most notably the Clean Jobs Act in 2016 – Hogan has vetoed legislation that would have encouraged solar and other clean energy development. And unfortunately, the legislature lacked the votes necessary to overturn them – at least in the Senate.

But if Hogan decides to stand in the way now, he’ll have his own Public Utilities Commission with which to contend. After all, the Commission released a report two weeks ago that focused on putting a value on solar and, to no one’s shock, the value of solar is good.

[wds id=”3″]

Like most value of solar reports that have been commissioned around the country, the independent report says solar is a good way to develop Maryland’s new electricity infrastructure, based on three different categories of measurement:

  • bulk power system and emission reduction benefits (utility-scale solar)
  • macroeconomic benefits (jobs); and
  • distribution system benefits (behind the meter solar).

In all three cases, the Commission’s report suggests that not only is solar a net benefit to everyone in the state, but more solar should be developed posthaste. The final paragraph of the executive summary states this clearly:

The large potential for additional BTM and utility scale solar development and the significant value that solar can bring to the bulk power system, distribution system, and to the residents of Maryland through macroeconomic and health benefits represent a considerable opportunity for the state. The state and investor owned utilities should consider developing policies and enhancing utility system planning processes to encourage additional cost-effective solar development.

In recent years, Hogan has stood in the way of solar and said it wasn’t worth developing. Now his own Public Utilities Commission says otherwise. Only time will tell whether Hogan comes around and allows Maryland to become the leading solar state it has the potential to be.

Read the whole report here:

MDVoSReportFinal11-2-2018

Two VOS Studies Vary Widely: Can You Spot The Major Difference?

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:Utility Dive has an excellent piece describing the 88% difference in two VOS studies, one in Montana and one in Maryland.

  • The Maryland VOS study, prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, values solar highly. The Montana VOS study, prepared by the state’s largest utility, values solar less highly. Can anyone spot the difference?
  • While the Utility Dive analysis goes far deeper into the specifics, it’s no surprise that these reports turned out the way they did.
    • VOS

    Is the image of the sun setting on a utility pole too heavy handed? I worry it’s a little heavy handed.

    SolarWakeup’s View:  Let’s get this out of the way first: Go read the Utility Dive explanation of two value-of-solar studies – one in Montana, the other in Maryland – which come to two deeply different conclusions about how solar should be valued when it comes to net metering and other compensation structures. It is excellent, and it is detailed. I could not do a better job myself.

    But I want to look at one factor that UD slides over that may be the single-biggest determining factor in why, according to the two studies, solar is 88% more valuable in Maryland than in Montana. That factor is who paid for the study.

    [wds id=”3″]

    In Maryland, the study was prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, a supposedly independent body whose job it is to balance the needs of ratepayers and utilities to come to an equitable balance between those two seemingly divergent interests. As such, it has no particular agenda to push; it can afford to look at as many facts as possible – and take as many stakeholder views into account as possible – before rendering its decision.

    Montana’s study, on the other hand, was paid for by the state’s largest utility, in whose interest it is to value solar less highly because of its own vested interest in keeping solar penetration limited. After all, the more solar penetration there is, the fewer people are dependent on the utility to supply electricity. That means a smaller customer base, which means fewer profits, which means unhappy investors. When there’s a study being done by one of the party’s involved in a dispute, it can’t surprise anyone when the study comes out in that party’s favor.

    I don’t mean to imply either study is perfect, nor am I suggesting that who paid for the study was the sole factor in outcome. But I am suggesting it plays a significant role – and is something activists on the solar side should account for whenever one of these VOS studies comes out against us.

    More:

    How two value-of-solar studies add up to no clear value of solar (Utility Dive)