Back
Ohio’s largest utility wants to slash compensation for rooftop solar owners — which would affect not only future investments but also thousands of regulated utility customers who have already installed panels on their homes based on existing rules.
Later this year, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide whether to keep its statewide net-metering rules intact or whether to switch ratepayers to a less lucrative program proposed by American Electric Power’s Ohio utility.
The changes put forth by the utility are drastic and would raise costs and discourage others from going solar, a broad range of critics say.
“In a time that people are struggling to pay their bills, they are trying to gut net metering, which is one of the ways folks who are able to [can] save money by putting solar on their rooftop,” said Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council.
AEP’s proposal will be considered as part of the PUCO’s ongoing five-year review of the state’s net-metering rules. Parties’ case filings were due last month, although public comments can still be submitted.
The rules apply to the state’s investor-owned utilities: AEP’s Ohio Power Company, Duke Energy Ohio, AES Energy Ohio, and FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities. Ohioans have added more than 20,000 residential solar projects statewide since the current net-metering rules took effect about seven years ago, according to data from the sustainability consulting group Unpredictable City.
In effect, AEP wants to include distribution charges for all electricity flowing into a solar-equipped household, even if a big chunk winds up going back to the grid. The company describes the change as a shift from net usage to net billing. And it wants to limit net metering to customers who don’t pick their own electric generation supplier or take part in a community aggregation program.
The reduced compensation could substantially lengthen the payback period for rooftop solar investments.
“Residents that have already invested in solar have taken on the upfront capital cost because of the long-term utility savings supported by net metering requirements,” Casey Shevlin, director of sustainability and resilience for the city of Akron, wrote in a comment. “Their consumer rights need to be protected from net metering changes that could result in them benefiting less from solar investments they have made.”
Battles over net-metering rules have played out recently across the United States, including in the leading rooftop solar market of California.
There and elsewhere, critics of net metering argue that it forces the average customer to overpay for rooftop solar’s extra energy and that net billing is a fairer system. Supporters of net metering say that it provides systemwide cost savings by increasing distributed energy and that it’s a proven tool for deploying and democratizing clean electricity.
Among utilities, only AEP has formally opposed the recommendation by the commission’s staff to keep net-metering rules in place. The company’s proposal is supported by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which said it wants to ensure there’s no “cost shifting” to people without rooftop solar.
But the AEP proposal has received massive pushback from environmental advocates, business groups, local governments, and others since its filing on the day before Thanksgiving.
The Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, Interstate Gas Supply, the Retail Energy Supply Association, Solar United Neighbors, the Ohio Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center have all filed formal replies with the PUCO, urging regulators to reject AEP’s arguments and to keep the current net-metering rules in place for all ratepayers.
AEP’s Ohio media relations office wrote via email, “Under net metering, a portion of the distribution-related charges are essentially shifted to other customers when the charges are calculated only for the net portion of the electricity delivered,” because infrastructure costs “are designed to be spread across the customers the system was built to serve.”
The company did not respond to Canary Media’s request for data showing how it or other regulated utilities would be hurt by net metering for customers who pick competitive energy suppliers or take part in community aggregation programs. The company has come after net metering before — and ultimately lost.
More than a decade ago, AEP took its arguments to limit net metering to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ultimately dismissed that case after the PUCO released new rules that generally favored the company. A year after hearing lawyers’ arguments urging it to reconsider those rules, however, the commission changed course.
The current policy, adopted in December 2018, requires regulated utilities to compensate all rooftop solar customers for excess power, but it does not allow credit for distribution charges or for any avoided capacity charges.
AEP’s gambit to change the rules now surprised advocates for renewable energy, such as Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for Solar United Neighbors. “The PUCO staff had already concluded that net-metering rules are working as intended, and they didn’t think any changes needed to be made,” she said, referring to a Nov. 5 administrative law judge’s order in the rules docket.
The utility has not offered any data or other detailed assessment to justify its proposed changes, Williams said. And many rooftop solar owners relied on the current regulations when calculating whether to make the investment. “Everybody is just wanting to make sure that what’s already been promised is continued,” she said.
Plus, rooftop solar customers already pay for equipment to feed excess power to the utility. Levying distribution costs for electricity that customers wind up feeding back to the grid would, in effect, charge them for supplying the utility with distributed energy. Other energy suppliers don’t have to pay that expense, so it shouldn’t be something utilities can charge residents for either, said Nat Ziegler, manager of community solutions for Power a Clean Future Ohio.
Moreover, reducing net-metering compensation and limiting who can get it would discourage more people from adding rooftop solar, said Joe Flarida, executive director for Power a Clean Future Ohio.
“More generation on the grid will help limit the amount of price increases we’re seeing,” Flarida explained. “Certainly, if we can encourage more distributed energy, that would offset the amount of added power we need on the grid.”
Power a Clean Future Ohio is among the hundreds of groups and individuals who filed public comments with the PUCO, in addition to the formal party filings. That level of response represents a big change from a decade ago, Rutschilling said, noting increased interest in rooftop solar over the past few years.
People’s electricity bills have already jumped dramatically as grid operators like PJM have sounded the alarm about needing more electricity to meet demand from data centers, increased electrification, and other factors. And results of the most recent auction will almost certainly increase costs even more.
A bill introduced last fall would declare it state policy to “ensure affordable, reliable, and clean energy security,” with “clean energy” specified as meaning electricity from nuclear or natural gas, with no reference at all to renewables. But any new nuclear power requires years of review, and even with expedited permitting, Rutschilling noted, orders for new natural gas plant turbines have lag times of several years.
“We need as much generation as possible,” he said. “We need to have things like distributed energy.”
.svg)
