Dirty energy's quiet war on solar panels

Authored by thehill.com and submitted by mvea
image for Dirty energy's quiet war on solar panels

Let's say you're thinking about switching to solar at home, but you're concerned about the start-up costs.

What if you received generous federal and state tax credits? That could help!

Better still, what if you discover that during those hot, sunny afternoons — when you're at work and hardly using any energy at home — you can sell the excess energy your solar panels generate back to the grid at the full residential retail rate?

This practice, called “net metering,” helps cut utility bills and shortens the payback period for solar installation costs. That sweetens the deal even more.

But what if you don’t own a home, or can't afford solar panels?

With shared solar, you'd even still benefit from net metering.

And when you contract with a company to install solar panels, you do your part to create jobs. Lots of them. According to Department of Energy data, solar jobs already outnumber coal-related jobs by a factor of more than 2 to 1, despite solar making up a much smaller share of the overall grid.

All in all, I'd say these incentives make a strong pitch for solar: You can help address climate change, grow the renewable energy economy, create jobs, and save money. Win-win-win, right?

Well, not if you're in the fossil fuel industry — or one of the politicians who owe them favors. And that's where things get messy.

In statehouses all over the country, there's a growing movement by industry front groups to undermine net metering and other renewable energy incentives. These front groups include the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry’s trade association, and outfits such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, both of which are funded by the Koch brothers.

These groups scored recent victories against net metering in Indiana and Maine, and have turned the renewable energy mandate for utilities in wind-rich Kansas — known in the industry as a Renewable Portfolio Standard — into a toothless voluntary goal.

Industry groups and the politicians they effectively buy claim that distributed solar energy imposes costs on customers who don’t install solar panels, because solar users don't pay their fair share of the costs of maintaining the grid.

Most cynically, they feign concern for poor people. Typical of this is Maine Governor Paul LePage’s claim, in his letter vetoing a bill that would've preserved net metering in his state, that the practice “subsidizes the cost of solar panels at the expense of the elderly and poor who can least afford it.”

However, independent energy experts — even those who don't support net metering in all circumstances — argue that the practice can be a “reasonable proxy for the value of solar.” The case against the utility and Koch-led attack on renewables is strong on logic, but evidently weak on campaign cash, which is why the onslaught of anti-net metering and anti-renewables bills continues.

This state-level push parallels another front at the federal level, where the Trump administration is unabashedly waging war on renewables. The president’s budget proposal eviscerates federal support for clean energy research, and the president has been an unapologetic supporter of the fossil fuel industry.

Energy Secretary Rick PerryJames (Rick) Richard PerryTrump officials hail coal export deal with Ukraine Perry conducts fake interview with Russian pranksters Perry on key electric grid study: ‘I haven’t seen it yet’ MORE joined the fray recently by ordering a study seemingly designed to show that renewables are undermining grid security. Evidently, he also wants to do Edison Electric Institute and ALEC’s dirty work by using the study to attack Renewable Portfolio Standards and wind and solar incentives in the states.

Amusingly, a leaked draft of the study apparently shows that the electric grid is becoming more reliable as wind and solar penetration increase. Apparently career energy experts at the Department of Energy aren't concerned with the ideological preferences of their political appointee overlords.

The truth is the best antidote to this flood of anti-renewables policies based on fossil fuel-funded misinformation. When people learn the benefits of renewables, they push back against these policies, defying partisan political stereotypes.

In Florida last year, voters rejected a ballot initiative to ban third-party sales and leases of solar panels, even after utilities spent $21 million to promote it — and even as Trump carried the state. Another purple state, Nevada, got rid of net metering — but then reversed course and reinstated it under pressure.

And it’s not just defensive fights either. Strong movements are pushing good energy policy in states all over, such as Hawaii’s mandate for 100 percent of its electricity to come from renewables by 2045, and Oregon’s requirement that 10 percent of shared solar capacity be set aside for low-income people.

By telling the truth — and by organizing like crazy — we can win policies that grow the green economy for everyone, in red states and blue.

Basav Sen directs the Climate Justice Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank dedicated to building a more equitable, ecologically sustainable, and peaceful society.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

zen_rage on August 5th, 2017 at 23:25 UTC »

Here is the thing... basically if everyone went this route, how would you pay for the maintenance and upgrades of the actual grid? Who is the bad guy? Its not just if one person does it in a community but if you have full communities doing it, and selling back energy, then should the electric/distribution company just disconnect you from their grid?

Sure they could pay you for generation, but you are also the person that pays for upkeep? So I havent really seen any good literature about long term, large scale net metering where we still maintain our electric grid.

Chuckbro on August 5th, 2017 at 23:16 UTC »

This idea of netting energy buybacks is a big issue, a lot goes into it. In Florida we had 2 seperate energy related votes at different times within months. Both acted pro energy and were labelled as such, but one was pro utility companies screwing us out of selling them back power.

The concept of a killowat hour I produce from a solar panel and one provided to me by the energy company homding different values is understandable. They build infrastructure and have different costs transporting that kwh from a plant to my home, but the idea that they get complete control over that value is also crap.

A kilowatt hour I consume should have a market price and my energy bill should reduce at that price per kwh for the amount I no longer use of the utility companies, simple. We should only be talking about buybacks when my entire home is fully powered 100% by solar and I now have excess energy to sell back. The energy company shouldn't get to charge me a percentage of the kilowatt hour I no longer need sent to my house, which I suspect they were trying to do from the wording of their fake pro solar bill.

Edits: Misspelling, punctuation, stupidly worded sentences that made no sense after I read them.

thetruthoftensux on August 5th, 2017 at 22:41 UTC »

I live in Hawaii,

Heco managed to ditch the net metering 1 for 1 credit to a 2 for 1 system basically fucking over any new installations. They grandfathered in the old ones knowing if/when a home ever sells they cancel that deal for the current shitty one.

You need a 10kw system (max for residential) to run a modern home without continuing to pay a $110 month electric bill.

With a 6 kw system I still paid $60 last month due to it being 95 degree's every day in the summer. That sounds cheap, and it is compared to $300+ without the solar, but I'd be paying more than double that under the new rules. 30K for the system, even with credits to help would make the ROI about 14 years. Not worth for many people.