Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / agencies / Energy regulators approve smaller solar surcharge

Energy regulators approve smaller solar surcharge

Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Bob Stump listens during comments from the public on the proposal to change the state's solar net metering system. (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Capitol Times)

Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Bob Stump listens during comments from the public on the proposal to change the state’s solar net metering system. (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Capitol Times)

In a blow to Arizona Public Service, energy regulators agreed late Thursday to a compromise proposal charging users of solar rooftop panels with a fixed fee of 70 cents per kilowatt.

The new charge, which will begin next year, is only a fraction of what Arizona Public Service sought – which was to reduce savings from the solar incentive by roughly half.

The decision was reached after a two-day deliberation that capped a months-long expensive campaign by Arizona’s biggest utility company to reduce a key subsidy for residential solar.

As adopted, the resolution comes out to a monthly surcharge of $7 for a 10 kilowatt residential solar system, and roughly $5 for the more typical 7 kilowatt system.

In the end, it was Commissioner Bob Burns’ amendment that became the vehicle to arrive at the new charge, which the regulatory agency adopted by a vote of 3-2. His motion was modified by an offer that was reached by the alliance of solar companies and the Residential Utility Consumers Office.

“If I were king, I would have written this differently,” Burns said, adding that, however, a consensus needed to be reached.

Burns, and Commissioners Bob Stump and Susan Bitter Smith supported the surcharge. Commissioners Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns opposed it.

Pierce said he doesn’t think the adopted proposal goes far enough to protect ratepayers.

APS opposed the motion.

The commissioners struggled to settle on a final surcharge amount, but they ultimately, the options were narrowed down to two – a $1 charge per kilowatt or 70 cents, which is what the solar alliance and the Residential Utility Consumers Office ultimately embraced.

Bryan Miller of SunRun, a residential rooftop solar panel installation company,  said the lower surcharge would translate to a big hit to his industry, but a $1 charge would simply be unsustainable. “[Cutting savings by] $7 will eliminate a huge segment of the market,” Miller said, referring to the estimated monthly charge for a typical 7 kilowatt solar system.

But APS counsel Thomas Loquvam said commissioners should pick the higher charge.

“It shouldn’t even be a dollar, it should be higher. The more the commission can address the cost shift, the better,” he said.

The solar industry backed away from forcefully resisting the idea of altering the current net metering scheme today, surprising commissioners by arriving at the compromise offer with RUCO.

Former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, who represents the interest of the alliance of solar rooftop companies that’s fighting APS’ proposal, and Patrick Quinn, director of the Residential Utility Consumers Office, spelled out the compromise offer midway during the second day of hearing.

The offer is for solar rooftop consumers to be charged with a fixed amount of 70 cents per kilowatt, which amounts to monthly surcharge of $7 for a 10 kilowatt residential solar system, and roughly $5 for the more typical 7 kilowatt system.

Hallman said solar companies recognize that they operate in an era of great change and acknowledge their contributing to it.
The offer of compromise moves the solar industry away from its position that the current net metering system should be maintained.

“We’re at the cusp of that kind of creative destruction here. New technologies are coming online that will assist us all,” Hallman said. “With that caveat – that we will stand by our views of what is the proper approach here – we’ve been authorized to propose that the solar industry will assist in providing some support to help bridge through this creative destructive period.”

Hallman also suggested that, in order to clearly send a signal of certainty to the market, the commission adopt the fix fee for a long time, perhaps as long as 20 years, although he was quick to add that future commissioners are not bound to the current commissioners’ decisions.

The proposal also entails grandfathering-in today’s net metering rules for those who already have rooftop panels or those who will be installing one by December 31. Additionally, the proposal seeks a second grandfathering-in for those who would fall under the proposed surcharge, so any change in the charges resulting from a future rate case would only apply to new customers.

But APS seems inclined to reject the offer from RUCO and the solar coalition, Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed.

“In 2016, I don’t want to be the one standing before this commission trying to explain why all those customers who don’t have solar are going to have a three or five percent increase in their bills because of the cost-shifting that occurs with net metering,” said APS exec Jeff Guldner, adding that while such an increase may seem small, it would be concerning to elder Arizonans on a fixed income.

Guldner said APS is going to be protected in any case, since a mechanism exists to recover its losses. “[But] you have not protected the customers. That’s what we came in here for,” he told the commissioners.

Additionally, Gulder said it is one thing to grandfather in today’s roughly 20,000 residential solar customers, but it’s another issue to do the same for up to 70,000 customers.

11 comments

  1. “As adopted, the resolution comes out to a monthly surcharge of $7 for a 10 kilowatt residential solar system, and roughly $5 for the more typical 7 kilowatt system.”

    In other words, “Something that you got for Free from Sunshine you must NOW pay between $5-7 dollars for”

  2. “Bob Burns, and Commissioners Bob Stump and Susan Bitter Smith supported the surcharge. ”

    Of course they did. All three were put in office last election by shifty APS campaign contributions, with shadow money coming from organizations that know they can buy elections. The massive campaign financing assured that the “Solar team” would be defeated. ………..And, most importantly, they need APS financing to be re-elected.

    “Commissioners Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns opposed it.”

    Surprise! Pierce is termed-out and Brenda Burns is running for another office. Neither needs any funding from APS, so the ability of APS to reward loyalty is not a factor in their votes.

  3. I want to thank Commissioner Brenda Burns and Gary Pierce for their free market vote today. People who use solar should pay the cost. I am not in favor of government subsidies. People who elect not to use solar should not be paying for the ones who do. In time, if solar is efficient and reliable, costs will come down. If costs do not come down it will be because the technology is not what people want.

  4. First paragraph, omit the last word, “hour”. The charge is based on installation (kW), not production (kWh).

  5. The sun is free in Arizona….or is it? Non-solar consumers should not have to pay for decisions made by solar consumers…..yet the Sun is free! Why should a monopoly that already controls the marketplace be allowed to make money out of something that is free to us all? Someone explain that to a non-solar cosumer, on a fixed income, who cannot afford any increase it rates, but is seeking ways to save money. APS is taking money out of our pockets! How is that protect consumers Commissioners! This is not good for the energy industry, small business or residents. You did us a disservice! We are already paying through our teeth!

  6. People who installed solar paid for all the equipment to generate environmentally clean energy, usually tens of thousands of dollars, which is not the case for a regular APS customer. Overproduction of solar energy during the day (peak hours) flows to the APS grid and APS charges their standard customers for this solar produced energy. There has to be a benefit here for APS reselling this solar produced energy during peak hours. The other, very important fact is that this is clean energy generated by the sun and I would think that should be our focus. Innovation and change is the only way to improve and sustain our way of life. We need to use this free resource!

  7. While the sun may be free, construction of grid infrastructure is not. It is an overly simplistic argument to say that because sun is free, is is wrong for a business to charge for value it provides. In fact, grid tie solar relies on the grid infrastructure and without the participation of the utility, net metering cannot function. Site storage solutions are a good next step, but the technology is not yet cost efficient.

    If we all work together in transforming the energy landscape, the net result will eventually be safer, cleaner and more affordable energy for all consumers.

  8. I can’t get over all the solar power consumers who want to claim they paid for their system, when in most cases they paid 25% of the real cost, the remained paid for by tax credits and rebates, etc. C’mon, you used public money to leverage your investment, now be polite enough to help pay for the costs of integrating solar into the grid. Or, if you don’t like it, get off the grid entirely.. live on your free solar energy, but don’t expect the utility to supply you with power at night.

  9. Look, TEP is makingmoney hand over fist. The power that gets fed back into the grid only means less power they have to generate – less fuel for their system… Also a good example when Tech moves forward and the “OLD” systems go out; Now that people have “INTERNET TV” do you now have to pay Direct TV and Cable TV companies a fee because you can now cut them off. or You’re running a Hybrid car, because you’re getting such better fuel mileage – do you have to pay the big oil companies
    .70cents per mile you drive? Although, that one is coming soon, you watch. I say, TEP can make cut backs and keep up with the changes instead of fighting them. We won’t need them soon, just think, if every new home is built with solar… just saying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top