This story initially appeared in WFAE’s weekly local weather e-newsletter, emailed on Thursdays. Get the information in your inbox first by signing up right here.
California utility regulators final week adopted new guidelines sought by utility corporations that cut back what rooftop photo voltaic homeowners pay for the electrical energy they ship again to the grid. Is North Carolina subsequent?
Charlotte-based Duke Power hopes so. Final 12 months’s state vitality reform regulation required regulators to alter rooftop photo voltaic costs. So in November 2021, the state’s main utility requested North Carolina regulators to approve proposed new guidelines for so-called “web metering.” That sparked a year-long battle amongst photo voltaic advocates and installers over the brand new guidelines, which might not solely cut back funds, but in addition add extra month-to-month charges for anybody putting in photo voltaic panels. of their home.
Final week, Duke and a number of other business teams submitted a joint proposed order for approval to the North Carolina Utilities Fee. Opponents have filed their very own orders and briefs in hopes of persuading regulators to reject or no less than delay a call. The battle could possibly be determined in 2023.
Photo voltaic advocates say Duke’s proposal would make photo voltaic much less engaging, value prospects with rooftop photo voltaic programs and improve the period of time it takes for folks to put money into photo voltaic. panel to get well their funding.
At present, photo voltaic panel homeowners whose programs produce extra electrical energy than they want can get credit on their payments equal to no matter they pay for electrical energy. Below the proposed modifications, these month-to-month credit could be decrease and differ by time of day and electrical energy demand. And householders will probably be charged a further $10 month-to-month price in the event that they add photo voltaic. Duke stated the modifications would higher align funds with electrical energy prices.
Web metering and rebates have been vital incentives driving the expansion of North Carolina’s photo voltaic business. However lately, utilities throughout the nation have tried to roll again these incentives – with some success. It isn’t exhausting to see why. If too many customers generate their very own electrical energy, demand will lower and so will the necessity for costly centralized energy crops. (And people crops are the place Duke makes most of its cash, as a result of it sells electrical energy to prospects at value.) In a nationwide marketing campaign, utilities and pro-utility teams argue that the web metering is unfair to prospects with out photo voltaic.
That is what Duke Power CEO Lynn Good stated on the firm’s annual assembly in Could.
“We have to pay a good and affordable fee, in order that not solely the shopper who generates the ability, however the prospects who profit from the ability pay the honest quantity,” he stated.
However some environmental teams, photo voltaic homeowners, and installers objected. They are saying Duke’s plan will gradual the adoption of photo voltaic vitality and make it more durable for the state to satisfy its local weather objectives. In the meantime, North Carolina’s 2017 regulation Home Invoice 589 requires an “evaluation of the prices and advantages of customer-installed photo voltaic.” Duke stated it supplied the knowledge, however the teams stated Duke’s dwelling examine was “flawed” and didn’t comply with the regulation.
The legal professional common’s workplace issues
North Carolina Legal professional Common Josh Stein has additionally objected to a number of filings, together with one final week. Again in March, his workplace known as for suspending consideration of the plan, to permit time for extra evaluation of what position rooftop photo voltaic might play in assembly the state’s aim for decreasing emissions. of carbon from vitality manufacturing. State regulation requires a examine of the prices and advantages of rooftop photo voltaic.
Nobody within the legal professional common’s workplace was out there for an interview this week, however the workplace stated in a press release: “Our workplace believes that Duke didn’t examine the advantages of the technology that customer-based, and the proposed web metering charges don’t. have in mind the advantages, together with the carbon discount advantages of rooftop photo voltaic.”
“It is vital that charges pretty compensate individuals who set up photo voltaic vitality to help the transition to scrub vitality. Because it stands, Duke’s charges ignore all of the elements they need to will probably be taken into consideration to make sure that prospects who set up photo voltaic are pretty compensated and prospects who do not are unfairly penalized with increased charges,” the assertion stated.
Duke gained the help of some main installers and photo voltaic business teams by agreeing to gradual the transition to the brand new guidelines, which might assist present photo voltaic homeowners. Final week’s proposed order was filed with the North Carolina Sustainable Power Affiliation, Vote Photo voltaic, the Southern Alliance for Clear Power and the Photo voltaic Power Industries Affiliation.
Amongst different issues, that settlement would create a 15-year “bridge fee” for some present photo voltaic homeowners and people putting in photo voltaic by the top of 2026. That bridge fee will probably be decrease than the present one-to-one net-metering fee. , however greater than the final fee. And it’s out there to a restricted variety of prospects every year. The deal additionally permits Duke to proceed with its unique plan to chop funds and add a brand new month-to-month price for photo voltaic customers.
The opponents saved combating
However some installers and rooftop photo voltaic advocates nonetheless battle the thought. In a March letter to the governor, legal professional common and regulators, 15 installers wrote that their very own calculations confirmed that Duke’s plan would cut back the price of a house photo voltaic funding by 25% to 35%. They fear that photo voltaic homeowners could wrestle to repay loans to purchase photo voltaic panels.
“Duke’s proposed modifications will considerably improve the time it takes to pay again my preliminary capital funding in a photo voltaic system,” Donald Oulman of Durham, a house photo voltaic proprietor, stated in a press release final week. “No company has the correct to alter the worth of a person house owner’s funding after buy.
Oulman was one of many events in one other joint submitting final week with the utilities fee. Others embrace the Environmental Working Group, NC WARN, Dawn Durham, 350 Triangle, 350 Charlotte, the NC Local weather Options Coalition, and the NC Alliance to Shield Our Individuals and the Locations We Dwell. Additionally they known as for a proper cost-benefit examine of rooftop photo voltaic earlier than any modifications to charges.
Duke Power spokesman Randy Wheeless says Duke overcharges for electrical energy from photo voltaic homeowners.
“In the event you’re paying a retail worth for photo voltaic each time you get it, numerous instances it isn’t value it. Do not get that very same profit.’ So we’re simply attempting to do one thing that is honest to the photo voltaic buyer and the non-solar buyer,” Wheeless stated this week.
At present, the utilities fee is busy engaged on the carbon plan, which is ready for December 31. It’s not clear when the regulators could flip their consideration to web metering modifications.
You possibly can learn all of the case filings on NCUC.web.
Extra concerning the carbon plan
State regulators have spent a lot of this 12 months studying filings and feedback and holding public hearings on Duke’s proposed carbon plan. Final 12 months’s NC vitality reform regulation required the fee to give you a plan by the top of the 12 months on how Duke Power will remove carbon emissions from its energy crops to satisfy the state’s local weather objectives. . Regulators are anticipated to difficulty an order subsequent Friday. Learn extra in my December 21 report “NC vitality regulators face a alternative on Duke’s carbon-cutting plan: How briskly and the way far to go?”
