Skip to main content

What’s derailing growth of solar energy in some US states? (downtoearth)

Indiana gets 2440 hours of sunshine per year. That’s higher than New York, Alaska or Ohio. Nevada, located close to the West Coast, gets 3646 hours of sunshine in 365 days. People in both these states are keen on switching to solar energy or meet at least some percentage of energy needs. However, hurdles are being thrown at them time and again.

Although coal is the biggest source of electricity in Indiana, renewable energy sector employs far more people. The solar energy sector in Indiana employs nearly 3866 people, three times the natural gas sector (1378). But even then, Republican Governor Eric Holcomb signed a bill that cuts incentives for rooftop solar, giving a huge blow to solar installers and their customers.

Areas of concern

Currently, if rooftop solar owners generate more electricity than they use, the power utility buys excess power at the retail rate—around 11¢ per kilowatt-hour(kWh). This is known as net metering. However, according to the new law, the utility would buy the excess power at a little more than the wholesale rate—around 4¢ per kWh.

The new Bill is partly an improvement on a previous version where rooftop solar owners had to sell all the power they produce at the wholesale rate and buy it back at the retail rate. But the new version places restrictions in other ways. It not only ends net metering for new customers after 2022 but also for existing customers who replace or expand their solar system after 2017.

Moreover, the new Bill empowers utilities to charge rooftop solar owners an additional fee for “energy delivery costs”.

According to Amit Ronen, director of the George Washington University Solar Institute, “This Bill is obviously an attempt to derail the rapid growth of rooftop and community solar in Indiana.”

Despite facing widespread opposition from people, Indiana legislators have been trying to slow the growth of solar for years. An attempt at radically scaling back net metering was made in 2015 Bill, but advocates manage to defeat the legislation.

“This Bill is obviously an attempt to derail the rapid growth of rooftop and community solar in Indiana”

fb
tweet
in


Who’s benefiting the most?

For power utilities, rooftop solar is a threat as it enables customers to buy less power from the grid. They consider net metering unfair to ratepayers who don’t have solar panels. They argue that rooftop solar owners are enjoying sweeping benefits as they can sell their surplus power to the grid without paying for transmission lines or other infrastructure needed to deliver that power to homes and businesses in the community.

This view is being countered by the rooftop solar community. According to them, it’s a net gain for the grid with owners bearing the infrastructure cost of power generation through solar panels and installation and delivering their surplus power to customers nearby. This, according to them, minimises the volume of electricity lost in transmission.

Nevada has a similar story to tell

The Las Vegas strip in Nevada has also become the target of power utilities for its efforts to harvest solar energy. Credit: BlackRockSolar / Flickr
The Las Vegas strip in Nevada has also become the target of power utilities for its efforts to harvest solar energy. Credit: BlackRockSolar / Flickr

Ahead of the Christmas in 2016, Nevada’s public utility commission (PUC) gave the state’s only power company, NV Energy, permission to charge higher rates and fees to solar panel users—a decision that led to the collapse of the rooftop solar industry’s business model.

Realising that a fair net metering is the way to encourage solar energy growth, the lawmakers in Nevada made progress with a slew of bills only in the first week of April this year. These bills, according to them, will revert back to more favourable rates for rooftop solar and increase the amount of energy credits for selling solar power. The Bills are now being reviewed by a full committee for consideration.

The Nevada Assembly Bill AB 270, if passed, will restore retail rates for up to 1,250 Sierra Pacific Power customers in Northern Nevada, thus reviving the state’s solar industry which took a hit two years back.

The Las Vegas strip in Nevada has also become target of public utilities for its efforts to harvest solar energy. Three of Nevada’s largest casino companies—Las Vegas Sands, MGM Resorts and Wynn—have announced plans to buy and produce more renewable energy. They have already started installing rooftop solar array. However, regulators will not allow casinos to be self-sufficient and stop depending on the state’s utility provider, NV Energy.

Collectively, 15 properties of the casinos account for seven per cent of NV Energy’s electricity sales, and if that income is lost, remaining customers of the power utility would have to bear the deficit, hence, causing significant rate hikes. According to media reports, the public utility commission (PUC) of Nevada is asking resorts to pay tens of millions of dollars to leave NV Energy’s services.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i