Solar Sector Victorious: California PUC Declares SDG&E's New Fee Illegal
| in News Departments > New & Noteworthy |
 In a Jan. 18 decision, the CPUC ordered SDG&E to file a new rate proposal that does not include the NUC, which was deemed to be illegal. "Development of such a rate element could affect not only SDG&E and solar customers, but also PG&E, SCE and other distributed generation and self-generation customers," wrote CPUC Commissioner Mark Ferron in the ruling. "Furthermore… I am concerned that this particular NUC charge may be inconsistent with current law, regardless of whether it is justified by cost causation principles or an analysis of the cross-subsidies inherent in current policies." The NUC generated immediate backlash among San Diego-area solar installers, system owners and other stakeholders when it was introduced by SDG&E last fall. The utility has maintained that the fee - which is based on the average hourly amount of power exchanged between the customer and the grid - is intended to divide its operational costs among net-metered customers and non-net-metered customers more fairly. Many PV proponents, however, asserted that the NUC would wreak havoc with PV system economics - making systems unaffordable, essentially freezing the local solar market and setting a dangerous precedent for other U.S. utilities. For NUC opponents, the murky legal status of the fee turned out to be key to what it is at least a temporary victory. Advocacy group Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN) filed a motion last October that stated SDG&E's NUC did not comply with the Public Utilities Code. A number of solar groups and related allies, including Vote Solar and The Solar Alliance, wrote in to formally support UCAN's complaint, the CPUC noted. In its ruling, the CPUC cited a section of the code that prohibits utilities from creating a "new charge" that would increase costs for customer-generators. "While the NUC rate would apply to both customer-generators and those who are not customer-generators, it would apply differently to customer-generators, who would pay the charge on both incoming and outgoing power under SDG&E's proposal," Ferron wrote. "By contrast, the non-generator customer would pay a NUC only on incoming power." Sanjay Ranchod, director of government affairs and senior counsel at SolarCity, says the CPUC's ruling is consistent with California law. He adds that it also "reflects the positions of consumers, businesses, public agencies, and others across the state that formed a broad coalition to oppose the proposed charge." SDG&E's new, NUC-less rate proposal must be submitted by Feb. 17. The utility said it will follow orders, but reiterated its stance on the issue. "The fact that net energy metering customers are being subsidized by non-solar customers is not sustainable in the long term," Lee Schavrien, senior vice president of finance, regulatory and legislative affairs for SDG&E, said in a statement. Schavrien added that SDG&E hopes both the CPUC and the California legislature will continue to work toward a solution for "cross-subsidies" and other rate-structure issues for solar-owning customers. For UCAN, the possibility that state lawmakers will soon enter the fray is cause for concern following the regulatory victory. The group predicts that SDG&E will, indeed, seek legislative action on this ongoing issue. "It is unlikely that they'll get the legislature/governor to change the law anytime soon," the group wrote in a recent blog post. "However, after 2016, our clear skies forecast gets fuzzier." Ranchod urges wary solar companies and their partners to keep an eye on lawmakers in the meantime. "Stakeholders now must monitor activity at the state legislature, where bills may be introduced or amended to undermine California's net-metering statute," he notes. "While this is a big victory for the solar producers in the state of California, the battle is not over," agrees Daniel Sullivan, owner of Sullivan Solar Power and leader of the San Diego Solar Coalition. "We need to continue our move towards renewable sources of energy and protect those who have made that move already." |
| |
 |
Comments
 | RDwyer | Reply |
| 20 Jan : 12:27 | ||
Solar Sector Victorious: California PUC Declares SDG&E's New Fee Illegal In the long run, utility companies have to decide whether they want to be transmission companies or merchant generators. The current mix in the business model pits the generation department against the solar customer base. What is unfortunate is the generation departments have profitability models based on running at full capacity day and night. This should allow the public to step in and make policy which mandates a preference for any technologies which run cleaner when the sun shines and the wind blows. A peaking plant that runs after dark generates half as much pollution than one that runs all day long. A smarter mix of technologies should be the desired long term goal. | ||
| lawler@abakus-solar.us | Reply |
| 21 Jan : 07:00 | ||
Solar Sector Victorious: California PUC Declares SDG&E's New Fee Illegal Sunny Days for California. Here in Virginia the stand by charge was won by Dominion Power. Solar energy should be their friend but they treat anyone who tries to partner with them with ugly contention. The fact is that as the population rises and demand for power increases, they will not be able to meet the demand without more forms of power output. Coal and nuclear facilities are extremely expensive and require a depleting resource. They are OK with that. If they partner with the smaller scale solar providers, they get power at below peak demand prices. They save money by not having to purchase power from other large scale providers, They also save by not having to build extra power plants that are unpopular and soon to be outdated as depleting raw resources continue to drive up costs. Partnering with solar could translate into lower costs for them and a lower price point to serve their customers. These power companies know they need to be supplemented by solar to meet the ever increasing demand. They are spending millions in Lawyer fees to paint a picture that doesn't actually exist. Naturally, those lawyer fees will be passed on to the consumer. The beauty of it is that the more they drive up their own price of production, the better the solar option looks for the consumer. They know this already, they just want to slow it down as much as possible and stick it to the consumer while they can. It's really just about money and power. | ||
| Streetperson | Reply |
| 21 Jan : 12:05 | ||
Solar Sector Victorious: California PUC Declares SDG&E's New Fee Illegal Until backup solutions are viable, the grid is with us. I'm pro solar but have projected the state of 100 % or 50 % solar onsite generation via net metering. At 100 % the utility has no net billing. In that case some fee will be required to maintain grid viability. Backing off that theoretical point to 10 years out, or today, it's only a matter of 'how much' the fee should be. That's the long run so SDE is right. And yes, until all potential solar owners have equal access to solar - such as the ability to pay, rooftop orientation etc - non-solar citizens should not be subsidizing solar for others. | ||
Submit comment
