Author Archives Laura Arnold

IndyStar.com: Indianapolis solar farms are taking off; IPL Feed-in tariff (FIT) called Rate REP responsible

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 21, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), IPL Rate REP, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

A photo illustration shows what will be the first phase of a solar farm now under construction at Indianapolis International Airport.

A photo illustration shows what will be the first phase of a solar farm now under construction at Indianapolis International Airport. / Telamon Corp.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130420/BUSINESS/304210015/Indianapolis-solar-farms-taking-off

 Utility's incentives, cheaper panels spur surge of alternative energy projects in Indianapolis

Written by Carrie Ritchie, Apr 20, 2013

The first phase of Indiana’s largest solar farm is under construction at Indianapolis International Airport. The airport announced a second phase Friday. And sizable farms have been proposed for land near the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and along Southport Road on the Far Southside.Indianapolis might not have Florida’s reputation for sunshine, but it’s quickly becoming a hub for solar energy.

Construction could begin on 31 large farms this year, and several smaller projects at homes and businesses are in the works, according to Indianapolis Power & Light, which keeps track of the projects.

If all of the projects are built, the energy they produce, coupled with energy produced by existing projects, would provide up to 100 megawatts of power per hour — enough to keep the lights and appliances running at 12,500 homes. Although that would account for only 1 percent of IPL’s power, it would be a significant increase compared with the amount generated elsewhere in Indiana and in neighboring states, IPL project engineer John Haselden said.

“One hundred megawatts of power in Indianapolis is probably more solar power than what’s in surrounding states combined,” Haselden said. “If they all get built, there would be quite a concentration of solar power.”

Some experts and activists question the cost and efficacy of solar, but it does offer several benefits.

The boom in Indianapolis presents a business opportunity for companies that want to make use of unused land and rooftops. Solar power also could create hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions in new construction projects.

It’s too early to tell how large and how lucrative the solar industry might be here because the boom is still in its infancy. Whether it will continue will depend largely on two of the factors that made it possible: incentives from the government and utilities such as IPL, and the decreasing cost of solar panels. As long as the incentives keep coming and the price of panels keeps dropping, experts expect more solar farms to be built.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvesting sunlight

Solar farms are starting to pop up around Indianapolis, largely because of incentives Indianapolis Power & Light has offered to developers. Here are some of the biggest projects that could be completed later this year:
1. Indianapolis International Airport: This single solar farm will be Indiana’s largest. The first of two phases is under construction. Each will have about 40,000 solar panels and be capable of producing about 10 megawatts of energy per hour, enough to power about 1,200 homes.
2-3. Southern Marion County: Sunrise Energy plans to develop farms on two lots at 10321 E. Southport Road and one lot at 5800 W. Southport Road. Combined, they will generate 28.6 megawatts of power per hour.
4. Indianapolis Motor Speedway: Blue Renewable Energy plans to develop a 25- to 30-acre solar farm on land east of the northern half of the Speedway. The farm would generate 9.6 megawatts of power per hour. IMS officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.
5. Vertellus: The chemical company plans a farm near its headquarters at 1500 S. Tibbs Ave. The farm would generate about 9 megawatts of power per hour.
Source: Indianapolis Power and Light

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“They’re definitely going to start popping up here pretty soon,” said Nick Melloh, president of Indianapolis-based Johnson-Melloh Solutions, which is helping to develop the solar farm at the airport.

IPL’s incentives for large solar farms have run their course. They ended March 30, and the deadline likely contributed to the recent surge in projects.

IPL is trying to limit how many farms are coming in so its customers won’t see a spike in their monthly bills. IPL pays solar owners more per watt for what they produce than the rate it charges customers to use the energy. So if all of the planned projects are built, IPL customers might see their bills increase by a few cents each month, Haselden said. The company will monitor the impact of projects that are in development before deciding whether to continue providing incentives for larger solar farms.

“We’re trying to be cognizant of rates, while at the same time developing renewable energy,” Haselden said.

Why solar?

People are beginning to explore solar energy for reasons ranging from efficacy and cost to emotion and aesthetics.

Power companies are more eager to invest in alternative energy because of restrictions on coal. The Environmental Protection Agency is increasingly regulating carbon dioxide, which coal-burning power plants release into the air. Some states require power companies to use some alternative energy sources. Indiana doesn’t have a mandate, but companies here are beginning to explore options other than coal.

“Every good portfolio has a diversification piece to it, just like your own investment,” Melloh said. “You spread it out to more conservative investments to know that in the long haul it’s going to pay off.”

Solar works better in Indianapolis than other types of alternative energy. It’s not very windy in Indianapolis, Haselden said, and it’s hard to build the tall turbines in the city. Biomass, which sometimes involves extracting methane from animal waste, also hasn’t worked well here because there aren’t many farm animals in the city.

Solar energy systems are becoming more affordable, too. Installing a system on a home five years ago cost about $8 per watt of energy produced, said Bill Hutzel, professor of mechanical engineering technology at Purdue University. Now, home systems cost about $5 a watt. Most arrays at homes range from 1 kilowatt to 10 kilowatts, so they can cost as little as $5,000 or as much as $50,000.

Installing a larger farm could cost $3 to $4 a watt. A decade ago, the first phase of the airport project, which is expected to cost about $30 million, likely would have been at least twice as expensive to build, Hutzel said.

Companies can use solar farms to turn a profit on land that is otherwise unusable. For example, the airport couldn’t build on certain parts of its land because of FAA regulations, so it asked developers to come up with proposals for a solar farm. The first phase will have about 40,000 solar panels and generate 10 megawatts of energy per hour, enough to power more than 1,200 homes. The second phase, which could be under construction later this year, likely will have just as many panels, Melloh said.

The solar farm is expected to be lucrative for everyone involved. The airport will make $315,000 a year leasing the land to ET Energy Solutions, a limited liability company created by Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telamon, which are partnering to develop the farm. Energy investment and development company General Energy Solutions will buy the farm and the LLC. Melloh declined to disclose the sale price, but he said they will make more than what they paid to develop the farm. GES then will sell the energy the farm generates to IPL.

The project also will create 140 temporary construction jobs and about 12 full-time jobs for people who will run the farm, Melloh said.

A photo illustration shows what will be the first phase of a solar farm now under construction at Indianapolis International Airport.

A photo illustration shows what will be the first phase of a solar farm now under construction at Indianapolis International Airport. / Telamon Corp.

That could be just the tip of the iceberg. If all 31 Indianapolis projects are developed, they would create $300 million in new construction projects and hundreds of jobs.

Incentives offered by the government and IPL are the driving force behind the solar boom.

The federal government offers homeowners and businesses a tax credit for 30 percent of the cost of solar energy systems.

IPL’s incentive program for solar farms started in 2010. The utility pays 20 cents to 24 cents for every kilowatt hour produced by solar farms that have the capacity to produce more than 20 kilowatt hours. That program won’t be renewed until IPL evaluates the impact the sudden influx of solar farms has on IPL and its rates.

IPL charges customers 5 cents to 8 cents per kilowatt hour of energy that they use, so if it’s buying solar energy from farm owners for three to four times that rate, customers will have to bear the burden of some of the cost, Haselden said. The extra cost would amount to less than $1 a month on a monthly bill.

A program that pays a one-time incentive of up to $4,000 to homeowners and businesses with solar panels capable of producing less than 20 kilowatt hours will continue at least through this year. IPL wants to continue it into 2014 but hasn’t yet received approval yet from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Haselden said.

Incentives from power companies seem to be a rarity in Indiana. At least one other company, Indiana Michigan Power, offers financial support to those who pursue solar and other renewable energy projects. But Duke Energy, which is Indiana’s largest electric supplier, doesn’t offer its 790,000 customers any incentives for installing solar.

“We have to learn from what we’ve got in the pipeline now before we go forward,” Haselden said.

An uncertain future

It’s difficult for anyone to predict how solar energy will fare in Indiana because there are no existing projects that rival the size of some of the planned solar farms.

The largest completed solar array sits on top of the Maj. Gen. Emmett J. Bean Federal Center in Lawrence.

That array, finished in 2011, includes more than 6,100 solar panels and receives money from IPL for the 1.8 megawatts of energy per hour it produces. Its output will pale in comparison to the output of the airport’s farm and others that could be built this year.

Solar truly is in its infancy in Indiana, said Douglas J. Gotham, director of the State Utility Forecasting Group at Purdue.

“When industry is in its early stages and you’re continually seeing new developments,” Gotham said, “it’s really difficult to see where it’s going to go.”

Solar has plenty of critics. Some neighbors of solar farms proposed off of Southport Road raised several concerns before the city approved the project. The neighbors said they worried that living next to fields of solar panels would reduce the value of their homes and that the panels would produce a glare.

Solar also cannot be the sole source of power for homes and companies. There is no way to store solar energy, so without other sources, people would lose power at night and on cloudy days.

And solar still is expensive, despite the gradual decline in cost. The incentives IPL offers make it more affordable, but they come at other customers’ expense.

If IPL’s incentives go away permanently, Hutzel said, Indianapolis won’t see new projects.

“You’d see these projects stop overnight,” he said.

Without extra help from IPL and other companies, businesses wouldn’t have much financial motivation to invest in solar energy. Indiana is behind other states such as California that offer their own incentive programs.

Melloh said he hopes IPL will resume offering incentives so that the boom isn’t short-lived.

It would put Hoosiers to work, he said, and would ensure the state has other viable power sources if carbon dioxide regulations tighten.

“It makes a lot of sense right now,” Melloh said, “to go ahead and diversify and hedge a little bit for the future.”

 

Follow Star reporter Carrie Ritchie at twitter.com/CarrieRitchie. Call her at (317) 444-2751.

Ohio 49.9 MW Turning Point Solar Project with AEP critical for PV maker Isofoton N.A.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 17, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Solar-farm project key to Isofoton’s U.S. vision

Officials have faith plan will go forward

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2013/04/17/Solar-farm-project-key-to-Isofoton-s-U-S-vision.html#iTQb2y3jLTyoxJ3f.99

BY KRIS TURNER, BLADE BUSINESS WRITER

Published: 4/17/2013

NAPOLEON — The next six months are crucial to the success of Isofoton North  America and the Turning Point Solar Project.

If the project takes off, Isofoton could ramp up its work force to more than  120 people. If not, the Spain-based solar-panel manufacturer will be forced to  alter its vision drastically for its U.S. operations.

The company’s plant in Napoleon, which employs between 20 and 40 people  depending on needs, failed to reach its goal of having 100 workers by December.  The firm had planned to hire more than 300 people.

The Turning Point project near Zanesville — about 60 miles east of Columbus — was to be the largest solar-panel farm east of the Mississippi River.

But in January, its future was put in doubt when the Public Utilities  Commission of Ohio rejected a plan that would have funded the project, with fees  tacked on to the bills of American Electric Power Co. customers.

AEP is a partner in the project and initially committed $20 million to it.  That funding could be allocated elsewhere because of the commission’s decision,  Terri Flora, an AEP spokesman, said.

“It could go to a different renewables project,” she said. “We have not  decided yet. We are still looking at the numbers and trying to figure out what  the next steps are.”

Isofoton executives were counting on the $180 million Turning Point Project  to generate the bulk of the work at their facility, which went online at the end  of 2012. Michael Peck, chairman of Isofoton North America, said the company now  is vying for government contracts and has signed deals in Japan to keep  Isofoton’s assembly line moving.

Mr. Peck said the company also has incoming business from Mexico and around  the world.

“We obviously came to a halt with the business model,” he said. “Our business  model was one that didn’t focus on government subsides and focused on deals with  companies and entities related around the production of our factory. Things have  not worked out quite as we have planned; they almost never do.

“The mark of any successful start-up is a certain degree of flexibility.  We’re trying to demonstrate that.”

Isofoton was partially funded with two state loans. It received a $5 million  loan from the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority and a $3 million loan from  the Ohio Development Services Agency.

The solar-panel producer is in good standing with the air authority, but it  must create 120 jobs by March, 2015, as part of its loan agreement. The  development-services agency also requires the firm to create 120 jobs by 2015,  and Mr. Peck said the company is current with that loan too.

Although the fates of Isofoton and Turning Point are closely linked, Mr. Peck  and a project representative are confident things will move forward.

Dave Celona, a Turning Point spokesman, said the project will be financed  with the support of customers interested in purchasing power or a stake in the  project. In order for Turning Point to be viable, most of the 49.9-megawatt  project must be financed, he said.

“We’ve got numerous conversations with community offtake partners,” Mr.  Celona said. “Certainly, we are engaged in conversations that I would consider  to be formal and serious.”

Contact Kris Turner at: kturner@theblade.com or  419-724-6103

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2013/04/17/Solar-farm-project-key-to-Isofoton-s-U-S-vision.html#UsVZpK3v51RqpQg8.99

Lake Village (IN) to get solar farm using NIPSCO feed-in tariff (FIT)

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 11, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Explaining the system

Explaining the system

Solar Project Manager Brad Wilson explains how the solar panels will be set up and what they will look like to the county’s BZA and neighboring property owners of the proposed solar farm in Lake Village.

Posted: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:20 am

Updated: 11:28 am, Tue Apr 2, 2013.           

Lake Village to have first solar farm in NC

By CHERI GAYFIELD,  Managing Editor

nceeditor@centurylink.net

NewsBug.info

BZA approves land variance for 3 acres of solar panels

MOROCCO, March 26 — The BZA approved a land variance for Lake Village Solar  LLC after listening to the proposed plan and to neighbors concerns Tuesday night at the Newton County Government Center in Morocco. A number of neighboring property owners were on hand to hear about the plan for a field of solar panels. The residents didn’t really know what the hearing was about because they had received the wrong letter regarding the meeting. In the letter, there was no explanation about the proposed variance nor was there a meeting place listed. However, only one resident who received a letter was absent from the meeting, and one, the Archdiocese of Lafayette, did not sign for the certified letter at all.
With this in mind, BZA attorney Patrick Ryan said the decision to continue with the request by Lake Village Solar LLC was left up to its representative Brad Wilson, who is also the project manager for the solar farm. Ryan outlined the risks, saying a decision could be challenged within 30 days to the petitioner. Wilson and the BZA members agreed to continue the process since there were more than a majority of neighbors present for the discussion.
To read the rest of this newspaper article please see the following:
Lake Village solar farm page 1
Lake Village solar farm page 2
Lake Village solar farm page 3

Are feed-in tariffs a ‘subsidy’ or just the ‘Golden Rule’, utilities pay for DG just the way they want to be paid for new plants?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 09, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT)  /   No Comments
I have called feed-in tariffs (FITs) just applying the 'Golden Rule' to electric generation. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) , i.e. electric utilities should pay independent generators of renewable energy and distributed generation just the way they expect payment for new generation. Electric utilities expect payment for the cost of generating electricity plus a fair rate of return on their investment. That's just what developers of renewable energy and distributed generation want. Laura Ann Arnold

Are feed-in tariffs a ‘subsidy’ for a small group of utility customers?

Posted on  by , Midwest Energy News

(Photo by Kevin Baird via Creative Commons)

(Photo by Kevin Baird via Creative Commons)

When a business or homeowner lowers their electricity bill by installing solar panels or wind turbines, do they drive up other customers’ utility bills?

That’s the perennial claim made by utilities that oppose policies that would require them to compensate customers for electricity they generate.

Most recently in Iowa, utilities argue that feed-in tariff and net-metering rules benefit a small group of customers at the expense of everyone else.

“The concept of subsidizing somebody’s electricity at the expense of others is one our boards around the state have not been able to get behind,” Tim Coonan, a lobbyist for the Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives, said last month after a feed-in tariff bill for small wind cleared an Iowa Senate committee.

Also last month, a spokesperson for Pacific Gas & Electric told Midwest Energy News that under California’s policies, poor households “subsidize the more affluent community” of homeowners who can afford to install solar panels.

The subsidy argument, however, is one that is overused and understudied, according to distributed power advocates.

“It’s a claim that needs a lot more investigation before it is reasonable to take it at face value,” says John Farrell, a senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a leading expert on customer- and community-owned clean energy.

In California, ‘it’s actually the opposite’

A recent cost-benefit analysis of California’s net-metering policy found some customers paying slightly more as a result of others’ solar panels, but on average the state’s electricity customers were benefiting from the customer installations more than the systems’ owners.

In other words, California customers who have used solar panels to lower their electric bills are the ones subsidizing everybody else.

“They found despite utilities’ claims … about customers not paying their fair share of the fixed costs, it’s actually the opposite,” Farrell said.

The January 2013 report, prepared by consulting firm Crossborder Energy for the Vote Solar Initiative, looked at a broader range of benefits than most utilities acknowledge. For example, customer-owned solar panels can lower transmission costs and postpone local equipment upgrades.

California’s net-metering policy requires utility meters to run forward and backward for customers that generate their own power. The state’s major utilities claimed the rule would push billions of dollars of additional costs onto ratepayers who don’t participate in the program.

“We conclude that the utilities’ concerns with the impacts of [net-metering] on nonparticipating ratepayers are unfounded,” the Crossborder Energy report says.

The analysis studied the impact on residential and commercial customers of Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison. When fully implemented, the average PG&E residential customers would likely pay a few cents more per month because of the policy.

All other customers, including PG&E’s commercial customers, would likely see benefits. Averaged across all three utilities, it creates a “small net benefit” for residential customers, and clear cost savings for commercial, industrial and institutional customers.

‘It’s really complicated’

So does that mean Iowa utilities are wrong to say that paying for customers’ wind power will push costs onto other customers? Not necessarily.

“In the end, it’s really complicated. You can’t take that study from California and generalize it for any utility,” Farrell said.

The variables range from grid congestion to rate structures. Without a specific cost-benefit analysis, you can’t just assume customer-owned generation adds costs, he said.

Paul Gipe, a California solar analyst who tracks feed-in tariff policies, says they’re simply a way to pay for new generation.

“This is exactly the same as when a private company, an electric utility, for example, is approved by its regulator to build a conventional power plant ‘in the public interest’,” says Gipe. The costs and benefits are studied, and if regulators think the plant is in the public’s interest, they will approve it even if it results in new costs for customers.

In a way, feed-in tariffs offer ratepayers more predictability and protection than conventional power plants, which usually come with a guaranteed profit margin for utilities, says Gipe. Feed-in tariffs require utilities to pay a certain rate for a set amount of time, but it isn’t adjusted upward if generation costs turn out to be higher than expected.

Buying solar power from utility customers is no more a subsidy for renewables than paying to build a gas or coal plant is a subsidy for fossil fuels, Gipe says. A subsidy is research dollars and tax credits for nuclear and fracking technology — not paying a fair price for generation, he says, and the distinction matters.

“The word ‘subsidy’ has a negative political connotation,” says Gipe. “Because of that, the word subsidy should be used correctly.”

Utilities challenge net metering as solar power expands in Calif.; Will utilities challenge net metering in your state?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 08, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

This article is a must read for anyone interested in solar PV and net metering. What happens in California may affect us all and the net metering policies in our respective states.

Utilities challenge net metering as solar power expands in Calif.

Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter

ClimateWire:

A program that pays California residents for electricity made by their rooftop solar panels is under scrutiny, and supporters fear it could be weakened.The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is examining the costs and benefits of net energy metering, a system that allows households and businesses with green power to earn credit for surplus electricity fed into the grid.Advocates say it's driven expansion of rooftop solar and locally based energy, also known as distributed generation."It is the anchor policy for distributed generation in California," said Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a San Francisco-based group. "Without it, the distributed generation solar market comes to a close. It's as simple as that."Utilities, however, argue that net metering creates a hierarchy among consumers. It forces those without solar to subsidize their wealthier neighbors with panels, said Denny Boyles , renewable energy spokesman at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E).Solar owners use and receive the benefit of power lines and transmission facilities, he said, but pay less for those services because of net metering bill credits. Net metering beneficiaries also pay a smaller portion of support for statewide programs that help lower-income residents, Boyles said."Without some kind of study of the impact [of net metering], other customers are going to have to shoulder an ever-increasing percentage of that burden," Boyles said.

Solar right now is about 1 percent of the state's energy mix and is projected to grow to as much as 4 percent over the next decade.

"It's relatively modest," said Gary Stern, director of regulatory policy at utility Southern California Edison Co. (SCE), but with "the growth in this industry, it could become of some significance. It could become a few hundred million dollars of subsidy."

Protecting consumers or profits?

Solar backers say that utility argument is a facade. Power companies don't care about consumer bills, they said. What they're really concerned about is that as solar grows, it reduces the need for infrastructure, which is where utilities make their profits.

"Utilities pretending to be ratepayer advocates is like Cookie Monster pretending to be a slow food advocate," said Bryan Miller, vice president of public policy and power markets at SunRun, a San Francisco-based company.

David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy Inc., speaking March 21 at The Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, Calif., said residential and small-business-based solar is a "mortal threat" to utilities' business model, as utilities split their costs among increasingly fewer customers, the Journal reported. NRG has solar projects.

Stern with SCE said it's true that "there may be less needs for transmission lines as result of local generation." But he added that there is now competition in transmission projects, and it's "no longer just a utility thing."

Utilities are not viewing distributed generation "as a threat to our transmission model," Stern said.

Until the CPUC produces its study -- which is due by June -- it won't be clear which way the agency is leaning. Solar companies and utilities in the meantime are each working to frame the issue and sway regulators and lawmakers. As solar use spreads across the nation, the outcome of this battle is likely to be very influential.

Renewable power growth is controversial in other states. In Arizona, utility APS recently sent a flier to residents informing them that they would be paying more to make up the difference for expanded green energy.

"Because more customers are installing renewable energy systems such as solar and wind, and energy efficiency measures such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and refrigerator recycling, APS is selling less electricity, but fixed costs remain. APS is allowed to implement a new charge to recover a portion of the fixed costs," the flier said. "A new charge will begin appearing on affected customers' bills in March 2013 in one of two forms: a flat addition to the existing customer charge (Flat Charge Option) or a new Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (LFCR) percentage of bill charge."

Browning said: "There are attacks on access to net energy metering out there. That's why we're continuing to educate policymakers and stakeholders on the value of net metering and of distributed generation, to make sure that everybody understands what's at stake so we can continue to enjoy the benefits."

In California, the contest has been building since last May, when the CPUC revised the formula utilities use to limit the number of customers eligible for net metering. That ceiling would be hit when the amount of power generated by houses and businesses with solar hits 5 percent of "aggregated customer peak demand." The CPUC changed the definition of "peak demand" in a way that's expected to allow potentially twice as much rooftop solar to qualify for net metering (ClimateWire, May 25, 2012). Utilities have been contesting that ruling.

"The cap hasn't been interpreted properly," Stern said. "That could lead to eventually subsidies that are too large, too many customers who are taking advantage of the system at the expense of other customers."

Legislation directs state study

Utilities have won help from a key lawmaker. Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D), chairman of the Committee on Utilities and Commerce, offered A.B. 2514, which passed last year. It required regulators to analyze whether customers under net metering are "paying the full cost of the services provided to them by the investor-owned utilities." It also required regulators to look at "the extent to which customers receiving net metering pay their share of the costs of public purpose programs."

Bradford previously worked for SCE. Solar companies say that gives utilities an inside track. However, the assemblyman said he supports solar energy but believes more data are essential.

"We need to get an understanding of the costs and benefits of net metering," Bradford said. "Utilities say it is expensive, while the solar industry says it benefits the ratepayers. A.B. 2514 simply requires the PUC to do the accounting and let us know the results so the Legislature and the public get a better understanding of how to design and implement sustainable programs to promote clean generation."

Solar businesses funded their own study, which they said shows that distributed solar and net metering benefit all ratepayers.

The excess energy is 100 percent clean and goes to the nearest neighbors of those with solar power, said Tom Beach, principal at Crossborder Energy, the Berkeley, Calif.-based consulting firm that produced the study.

"It uses almost none of the utility's transmission and distribution system," Beach said of the surplus solar power. The utility doesn't have to generate energy from a distant power plant, he said, or add transmission lines all over the state. Those savings in the distribution system benefit other utility customers, he said.

However, Boyles with PG&E said utilities actually have to have natural gas power plants to meet demand when solar isn't generating energy and have needed to add infrastructure to back up solar.

Higher fixed charges?

Along with the net metering study, the CPUC also is looking at power rates. Some of the utilities are arguing that there needs to be a change in the structure. Right now California uses a tiered structure, in which rates sharply increase as consumption rises. It's intended to promote conservation.

Stern with SCE argues that existing tiered rates are a problem when combined with growth in rooftop solar. People who add solar, he said, tend to be among the largest users of energy. But because of credits from net metering, those customers aren't paying in the top tier. The utility still has to provide that energy during times when the sun isn't shining, he said.

One option for the CPUC to consider is a flat charge all customers would pay, he said. SCE has one now that's about 80 cents per month, "lower than anywhere in the country," he said. There needs to be something more like $5 per month, he said.

"We'd like to move in that direction," Stern said. "Exactly how far is a debate we need to have movement toward."

Solar backers said a higher fixed charge would hurt renewable power. There is less incentive for people to add green systems or energy efficiency measures, said Browning with Vote Solar, because they are "not moving the needle as much. Reducing energy usage, you don't get as much value out of it."

Reporter Debra Kahn contributed.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG