By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Recently, President Donald J. Trump yet again riffed on how much wind power kills birds and opined that if the wind doesn’t blow (for wind power) or the sun doesn’t shine (for solar power), “we have a problem.”

Well, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, EVs could be the way to solve renewable energy’s intermittency problems at a fraction of the cost of what widespread stationary battery use would cost.

That’s what a report by two writers at the National Resources Defense Council discuss in a fascinating article at the Microgrid Knowledge website. As usual, California is the overriding example of a state that could do it absolutely right.

As the authors write:

A study recently published by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) shows that the electric vehicles (EVs) expected in California in 2025 could be used to meet the majority of the Golden State’s energy storage mandate that calls for 1.3 gigawatts (GW) of battery capacity by 2024.

The keys from the Berkeley paper are as follows:

Let’s sum up the findings from the paper on how the expected number of California EVs can help to ensure grid stability and fulfill the intent of the storage mandate:

• Without hindering drivers’ transportation needs, smart charging or V1G can easily provide 1 GW of storage, or about three-quarters of the 2024 storage mandate.
• V1G and V2G combined can offer an astounding 5 GW of storage, dwarfing the storage mandate, and enabling the integration of much higher quantities of renewable energy.
• Crucially, while V1G may require a system-wide investment of around $150 million, that’s substantially less than the $1.45-$1.75 billion that equivalent stationary (non-EV) storage would cost. (The paper used stationary storage costs from 2015, the latest available at the time of its writing, but even with the substantially lower storage costs of today, V1G implementation remains far cheaper.)
• Using a similar approach, the value of grid services associated with V2G in addressing the “duck curve” is equivalent to $12.8 to $15.4 billion in equivalent stationary storage.

In other words, Tony Seba could well be right when he said at Intersolar North America that if we just electrify everything, we can stabilize the grid and meet 100% of our electrical needs from renewable energy in the next thirty years.

Sorry, President Trump – those are just the facts

More:

Study: Using EVs Instead of Stationary Batteries Could Save Billions

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

An ongoing controversy in New Mexico over stand-by fees on solar customers may finally becoming to an end, according to an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

A hearing officer recently recommended that regulators make Southwestern Public Service Co. stop collecting a “standby fee” from customers with solar systems, saying a study the utility used to justify the fees is “riddled with errors and unreliable.”

Color me shocked (not shocked): A utility is using flawed materials to justify treating solar customers like separate-class citizens. Sounds an awful lot like the “cost shift zombie myth” we spend a lot of time debunking around these parts.

Wait, the zombie lie is part of this bad information? Of course it is.

As hearing officer Carolyn Glick wrote in her finding suggesting the fees be done away with:

the company failed to demonstrate the surcharge “appropriately recovers the costs of ancillary and standby services” used by solar customers or that the fees are “based in any actual difference in costs the company incurs to serve [solar] customers.”

Glick wrote that Southwestern Public Service can’t show it “provides distinct ‘standby service’ for [solar] customers that it does not already provide to all full-requirements customers.” She also said the utility can’t show that solar customers “are not already paying their proportionate share of system costs.”

Solar advocates like Vote Solar and the Coalition for Clean Energy blame the fees for stunting solar growth in the state, which goes against other efforts by the state to encourage solar growth, including requiring utilities to include storage in their long-term resource plans and the creation of a disclosure form that makes installing solar much safer for consumers.

At the end of the day, these “stand-by” charges are just fixed charges by another name. Here’s hoping the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission recognizes them for the price-gouging they are and eliminates them from solar customers’ bills.

More:

PRC asked to end fee charged to Eastern New Mexico solar users

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

From an outsider’s perspective, it sure looks like Gov. Paul LePage of Maine is winning his longstanding war on solar.

Armed with zombie lies about cost shifts and allowing utilities to run amok with special burdens on solar users, LePage has fought for at least three years to strangle the solar industry in his state, vetoing three different pieces of legislation that would have helped set the Maine solar industry on more solid footing.

Now the Supreme Court has gotten into the act, saying solar advocates’ attempts to challenge current net metering policy to the state’s highest court was improper and sending the case to a lower court. Current net metering reduces compensation rates over time and only grandfathers current solar installations at full retail net metering for 15 years.

Critics say 15 years isn’t long enough to receive full payback on the system, to which LePage and his allies scoff, point and laugh. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, said, “Go away kids, you’re bothering us.”

The case will now be handled by a lower Superior Court.

The crux of the issue in the case is best laid out in the Portland Press Herald:

During those arguments, the justices were already questioning whether it was appropriate for the state’s top court to handle the case. Under Maine law, challenges to PUC rules typically go before Superior Court judges first, but the law foundation appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court. The foundation had argued the rule was actually a rate change, which can be appealed directly to the higher-level court.

The justices ultimately dismissed the foundation’s appeal of the rule. In her written opinion, Chief Justice Leigh Saufley said the foundation is required to take its case to a Superior Court before it can come before the Supreme Judicial Court.

The case isn’t over yet, but it does look like it’s going to be a long slog for solar advocates in the state, especially in the face of such overwhelming opposition from the governor’s mansion. It’s worth paying attention to and supporting our solar sisters and brothers in the state as they continue the largely thankless job of advocating for solar in such a state. Godspeed to all of you.

More:

Maine’s top court says appeal of changes to solar incentives must go to lower court