In the latest chapter of the “Rentseekers” of Big Energy stifling growth in the disruptive rooftop solar industry, consider for a moment the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which is trying to change the rules on rooftop solar customers in the middle of the game.

Since 2009, thousands of LADWP’s customers have signed lease agreements with third-party providers and had systems installed. These contracts were approved by DWP. Now, LADWP is trying to force hundreds of the city’s most recent solar customers to re-sign their contracts, attempting to force solar companies to insert amended language even though the utility acknowledges they had approved the contracts on no less than three separate occasions.

On precisely none of those occasions did their reviewers catch what they suddenly perceive to be language that may in fact violate their own standards for contract language.

By slowing the progress of solar energy and creating such a difficult consumer and business experience, LADWP is acting in direct contrast to the city’s goals for solar growth. Regardless, without re-signed contracts, LADWP says it will not allow these customers to interconnect their solar systems to the grid. This prevents them from accessing the benefits of local, clean power, and from lowering their electricity bills.  

The re-signing process has been extremely confusing and off-putting, especially for those who already have systems built on their rooftops. It, once again, puts the rooftop solar industry – a major source of job growth – at odds with the municipal utility. (See previous criticisms of LADWP, their delays, and inefficiencies here.)

Solar companies and constituents are in the process of contacting L.A. council offices, so there is hope that a policy fix is be on the way. Moreover, Mayor Garcetti has made his plans for increased distributed generation in L.A. clear. After all, the City did approve the original contracts that solar companies have used.

Meanwhile, interconnection is on hold for hundreds of families. Consumers are trying to do the right thing, and solar companies and customers have complied throughout the process, yet the utility is forcing everyone to jump through hoops despite approving the original course.

Let’s hope L.A. moves forward and changes the course.  

As a sports fan, a question always pops to mind whenever I consider the story of David and Goliath: Who would take this match-up in a best-of-seven series? That’s because, in most sports, over time, the laws of averages come into play, the inherent advantages of one competitor win out over the disadvantages of the other, and a true champion is crowned.

So how do we explain the recent run of success that has the blossoming solar industry (i.e. David) routing monopoly utilities (Goliath) all across the country? Well, like they say in sports, they don’t play the games on paper. And the same would seem to apply in the world of competitive energy.

Since the beginning of summer, solar supporters have racked up a 3-0 record against big utilities…

Louisiana

In late June, the Louisiana Public Service Commission voted to maintain the policy that gives rooftop solar customers fair credit for the excess electricity they deliver back to the grid. This policy is known as net energy metering. It is a critical piece of revolutionizing our energy grid because it supports and encourages customer choice and private investment in rooftop solar.

As you might expect, the entrenched utility industry has been trying to kill net metering policies across the country since solar benefits like this put their profit margins at risk. But with net metering on the books in 43 states, the playing field may be too large for even big money special interests to execute a cohesive game plan. Which brings us to…

Idaho

Shortly after the landmark decision in Louisiana, Idaho Power tried to alter their net metering rules and lost huge when the Idaho Public Utilities Commission released its net metering decision, denying the utility most of its proposed changes. Among the highlights from that decision are that there will be no cap on net metering moving forward, no modification to the existing pricing structure, and no expiration of excess generation credits. All three points are huge victories for the solar industry.

California

But the big dog in any national policy debate will always be the Golden State. As the most populous state in the nation and the 8th largest economy in the world, decisions made on the left coast tend to wash over the rest of the country in time. So, it’s big news for solar energy that the California Legislature passed a bill (AB 327) in the final days of this year’s session that protects our state’s net metering policy. And in a coup for solar advocates, it had the support of the utility industry.

Originally seen as a solar killer, AB 327 received a makeover with amendments to: 1) lift a suspension order on net metering that would have gone into effect at end of next year; 2) provide certainty around how the current net metering cap is calculated, 3) provide a framework for removing the cap altogether and 4) remove the existing ceiling on California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which means the Public Utilities Commission can require utilities to get more than just 33% of their electricity from renewable energy sources.

By all accounts, this is a policy unique to California, and it encourages continued development of renewable resources on all fronts.

Kudos for this impressive run of victories is due to advocacy organizations like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the nonprofit group The Vote Solar Initiative. For the sake of our environment and consumer choice, we should hope their successes continue.

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

In order to protect itself from the perceived threat of rooftop solar, First Solar is filing comments against net metering in states like Arizona and Nevada where a significant portion of its large-scale project portfolio is located, and where the preservation of net metering policies is up for evaluation.  Nevada is the site of two of the company’s large scale projects, which means the utility in that state is a major customer for First Solar. Comments filed in Nevada by First Solar advocate for thwarting the growth of their own industry by attacking residential solar.  Similarly, First Solar filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on September 18, 2013, in which it claims that the spike in rooftop PV growth has led to a financial burden on ratepayers and utilities.  As I mentioned above, studies show this is not true at all.

Rooftop solar’s popularity among ratepayers and utilities does not come exclusively from the fact that it is a renewable source of energy.  In addition to societal benefits, it is also a form of distributed generation – which means that it is energy produced close to where it is used. In areas where the grid is constrained and electricity demand is on the rise, utilities have the potential to save millions by avoiding the costs of paying for new power lines and purchasing more electricity. Utility scale solar just cannot compete with that.