Net metering policy in 43 States and Washington DC--a "Wildly successful" are expansion PVA noted panelists Evan Dube of SunRun. Two studies published in the last few weeks, look at California and Vermont, calculate that net metering imagery benefits for taxpayers outweigh costs. The Vermont study in particular takes a broader view of net metering "uppercase" and should use its model, to front, he noted.
There is a glaring need for generally accepted procedures and transparency; for example, how net metering utilities postpone or avoid, transmission and distribution (T & D) investments can help. Investments in assets sales growth is not so attractive, more, John Costlow from the sustainable energy Fund pointed out. California is $12 billion in transmission investments staring and anywhere from $17 billion are needed Canadian to bring wind and hydro power down in New England markets. Utilities can the income through net metering complaining, but costs and may be attractive to the avoidance of such massive spending on utilities, the panelists agreed.
Recognition of tensions on both sides of the net metering debate, PVA expert Thomas E. Hoff of clean power research urged utilities and taxpayers to those tensions, diffuse focuses on the figures and at least agree what criteria on the value of solar energy, can be counted, even if utilities and taxpayers will assign different weights you. Where you the value net metering can be resolved in two ways, he said: "Cost of services" all out into a single rate structure or one "value of solar", in terms of consumption is treated separately from the production that brings. His example of different methods of net metering comparison, Austin Energy and MSEIA (particularly Philadelphia); Both had added weight, related factors of economic development, market price reductions and long-term societal benefits pretty much equivalent numbers for the "value" things such as T & D capacity production capacity and environmental benefits, but MSEIA.
Another key to the net metering is to understand its advantages in addition just solar. Utilities, see great value, for example, with immediate granular data during a storm outage, show them what actions online as most customers with the least impact, would get back found Costlow. One audience member suggested that criteria should be a value time of use Costlow pointed out that days were increased commitment the days which provided solar more energy.
Costlow warned utilities to fit their tariff structures as grid parity of solar power generation approaches, compared to their situation, such as the telephone industry from the initially slow penetration of mobile phones, broadsided was turned away from traditional fixed-line network in a warp-speed.
Yet a battle
Despite the demand for peace is clear, there are still very polarizing views on the value of net metering. Days before PG & E Helen Burt, senior Vice President and "chief customer officer" criticized, net metering for solar energy, say "they avoid paying their fair share of the electricity grid, which in the night," customers 'utility customers pay for fixed costs for electricity and other utilities remain."take their higher prices criticized a current study shows the benefits of net metering, arguing "solar advocates for paid  with numbers, which get supported their position to a predictable conclusion" even as the California public utilities Commission (CPUC) committed, an own analysis net metering.
Not surprisingly, this net has incensed metering users everywhere. Running on the Sun founder/CEO Jim Jenal calls Burt's op/ed is a "Declaration of war on solar," "faux populism" and "naked self-interest." Extending the argument, he muses, when PG & E continue single taxpayers energy punish other practices will reduce installation of LED lamps with more efficient commercial HVAC systems. "Is this the right way to cover the cost of fixed assets? Maybe not, but one thing is sure, it was not the solar customers of PG & E of the fare structure, designed "he writes.
View the original article here