<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Here's more of PG&E and cohorts doing what they do best-
protecting their investors' pockets and killing an innovation for
delivering decentralized power because it would make their power
grid carry less photon gold.<br>
<br>
I hope SF Community Power Authority will be able to incorporate the
kinds of innovation in energy delivery this murdered legislation
would have provided.<br>
<br>
Don<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Utilities beat back community solar bill in California</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:33:29 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Roger Herried <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rogerh@energy-net.org"><rogerh@energy-net.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE"><br>
</th>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<header class="bottom-padding-x4"><font size="+3"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/utilities-beat-back-community-solar-bill-in-california/">Utilities
beat back community solar bill in California </a></font>
<p class="byline">By <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/" title="Posts
by David Roberts">David Roberts</a></p>
</header>
<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-49335"
title="RIP-solar-panels.jpg"
src="cid:part3.04000504.07030207@sbcglobal.net" alt=""
align="right" height="219" width="250">One of the big pieces
of a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://grist.org/article/toward-a-future-that-makes-sense/">future
that makes sense</a> is an energy system that involves clean
power, less waste, more intelligence, and a wider distribution
of economic benefits. (Think locally owned solar panels hooked
into a smart grid.) I lump all that under the term “distributed
energy” and have been making fitful efforts to track some of the
battles going on around it.</p>
<p>The latest episode is a sad one. Last year in California, state
Sen. Lois Wolk (D) set out to tackle a pretty simple problem:
Access to distributed energy (mostly rooftop solar panels) is
restricted to those who can afford it and own a suitable roof.
About 75 percent of Californians don’t fall into that category —
they either rent, don’t have the equity, or have a shaded or
wrong-facing roof. That’s a huge market to be tapped.</p>
<p>So she put forward <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://grist.org/news/how-to-put-solar-panels-on-your-roof-even-if-you-dont-have-a-roof/">Senate
Bill 843</a>, which would allow customers in the service
territories of the state’s three big investor-owned utilities —
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California
Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) — to
“subscribe” to distributed energy projects (20 megawatts or
less) anywhere in their territories. So, for instance, a condo
co-op could get together and invest in a solar project covering
a nearby parking garage. Or a congregation could get together
and invest in panels for the top of their church. They would
sign a contract with a solar developer and pay a monthly fee
(wrapped into their power bill) for a portion of the energy
produced. Under the legislation, up to 2 gigawatts of power
could be financed this way across the state; no state money
would be required.</p>
<p>According to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://votesolar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SB-843-job-econ-impacts-report-6-6-12.pdf">a
report by Vote Solar</a> [PDF], in the process of adding 2 GW
of distributed renewable energy, the program would create 12,000
new jobs, $230 million in state sales tax revenue, and $7.5
billion of economic activity in the state. The bill was backed
by a broad coalition that included businesses, schools,
nonprofit groups, and the Department of Defense.</p>
<p>Sounds good, right? But it didn’t sound good to the big
quasi-monopoly utilities, PG&E and SCE (SDG&E supported
the bill). Late last week, they led a last-minute flurry of
lobbying and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11080">killed
it</a>.<span id="more-127473"></span></p>
<p>The murder took place in the Assembly Committee on Utilities
and Commerce, under what sounds like some pretty shady
circumstances. Apparently Wolk made a deal with committee chair
to back a scaled-down version of the program, but once committee
doors shut, the chair flip-flopped. Wolk was blunt: “PG&E
and Southern California Edison control the committee … the
coalition of support behind this measure was simply no match for
the high paid lobbyists and the campaign contributions of these
monopoly corporations.”</p>
<p>One of the utilities’ objections (which are detailed in <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/30/4770011/another-view-solar-bill-would.html">this
op-ed</a> from PG&E) was that the bill would shift the
cost of maintaining the electricity system to other customers.
This is, um, bullsh*t. SB 843 was explicitly designed so that
participating customers would still pay all their own
transmission, distribution, and public-purpose charges. And
regardless, one of the great benefits of distributed energy is
that it <em>reduces</em> those costs; you don’t need new power
lines when the power plant is on your roof.</p>
<p>The utilities’ alleged concern over costs is touching, but
somewhat ironic. PG&E is still paying out a $70 million
settlement over its boneheaded <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/pge-san-bruno-explosion-memo_n_1446670.html">San
Bruno pipeline explosion</a>. Guess where that money comes
from? That’s right, ratepayers. Oh, and PG&E also recently
tried to bump up its guaranteed “return on equity” from 8.75
percent to 11 percent, which the Division of Ratepayer Advocates
deemed “<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.dra.ca.gov/general.aspx?id=1860">out of line
with today’s market and unfair to customers</a>.” Guess where
that extra annual $337 million in profits would have come from?
Right again. As for SCE, its shareholders are currently banking
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/29/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120829">$54
million a month in profits</a> for running the San Onofre
nuclear plant, which, um, isn’t running. Guess where that money
is coming from? Yup.</p>
<p>So really, utility concern over ratepayer costs? Spare me.</p>
<p>I suspect the real objections were elsewhere. First, the 2 GW
in distributed solar wouldn’t have counted toward the utilities’
obligations under California’s aggressive renewable energy
mandate, under which utilities have to get 33 percent of their
energy from renewables by 2020.</p>
<p>Second and relatedly, the program would effectively have cut
utilities out as middlemen. Customers would have been
contracting directly with power providers. That is a threat to
the entire utility model, which relies on tidy planning, captive
ratepayers, and a publicly guaranteed rate of return. That model
all but prohibits the kind of disruptive evolution the
electricity system desperately needs, but it works quite well
for utility shareholders and they will fight to the death to
preserve it.</p>
<p>I don’t know how the program would have played out had the bill
passed. Maybe it really would have been a mishegas like the
utilities warned. But these facts remain:</p>
<ul>
<li>We need rapid evolution in the electricity sector.</li>
<li>Under the current regulatory regime, utilities are all but
incapable of that kind of innovation.</li>
<li>The prospects of reforming that regulatory regime are dim.</li>
</ul>
<p>Given all that, I don’t see any alternative but to go <em>around</em>
utilities, to find ways for customers — communities, businesses,
civic groups — to work directly with microgrid and distributed
energy providers. We need some of that magic that comes from a
competitive market and we’ll never get it as long as utilities
maintain their monopoly on power.</p>
<p>On that note: supporters of SB843 intend to redraft it and have
another go at it in January. I’ll keep you posted.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Roger Herried<br>
<br>
Abalone Alliance Clearinghouse archivist<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.energy-net.org">Energy
Net</a> </div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>