Guest Post: PG&E Sees a Bright Future for Rooftop Solar

PG&E shares its position on net energy metering and solar policy in this contributed piece.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about rooftop solar [and net energy metering -- Ed.] lately in this journal, as well as in other news outlets. Unfortunately, not all of the discussions have set the right context around this important issue, and as a result there seems to be a fair amount of confusion. I’d like to set the record straight. 

First, some facts:

 

It is against this background that PG&E evaluates issues such as incentives for rooftop solar, including net energy metering (NEM).

While the growth of the rooftop solar market is exciting to be a part of, PG&E is concerned that the direct and indirect incentives for rooftop solar included in PG&E’s rates provide an unfair financial advantage to solar customers – at the expense of all our other customers.

In short, solar customers are able to substantially reduce, or in many cases, to essentially zero out their bills, even though they use the grid more intensively than non-solar customers, as they both import and export power over the course of the day.  

Furthermore, intermittent supplies like solar that can be 'on' one moment and 'off' the next require PG&E to maintain additional infrastructure to ensure that the entire system can remain in balance.  

A zero bill from a solar customer means that the costs to maintain a safe and reliable electric grid and to support PG&E’s renewable supplies, energy efficiency programs, rate discounts for low-income customers -- as well as the very subsidies that help pay for rooftop solar – have to be shouldered by non-solar customers.   

This unfortunate set of circumstances is driven by a 'policy trifecta' consisting of:



These policies may have made sense when rooftop solar was in its infancy. However, the maturation of the industry, combined with significant reductions in the costs of solar, means the time is right for the state’s policymakers to implement changes to the current structure that result in a rooftop solar program that is sustainable and fair to all customers.  

This includes addressing the structural problems with rates paid -- or avoided -- by solar customers, and replacing full retail NEM with a compensation-basis model that reflects the value that all of our other customers receive from exports. Rather than being characterized as 'anti-solar,' these initiatives should be viewed as a best-practice means of restoring the balance of costs and interests among all customers.

For example, SMUD -- a solar-friendly neighbor of PG&E’s -- is moving from a $10 per month residential customer charge to a $20 charge in a matter of a few years. PG&E’s residential customer charge is currently…$0.

PG&E believes that solar energy in California is currently in a healthy state and could have an even healthier future. We wholeheartedly support that. But in fairness to all customers, it is important to solar’s long-term sustainability that the costs for providing energy and maintaining a robust grid are shared equitably. Working together with elected officials, regulators, consumer groups and others in the energy industry, we are confident we can reach good, smart and sensible solutions. 

***

David Rubin is Director of Service Analysis at Pacific Gas and Electric.