MORE BAY STATERS ARE BENEFITTING from solar power than ever before. Such widespread adoption of the technology represents a growing consumer desire to control and cut their electricity costs while reducing their environmental impact. It is the result of thoughtful, stable policies that have cultivated a solar workforce boasting 15,000 jobs and – at nearly 1,000 MW – a top-five national ranking in installed solar capacity. Most exciting for Massachusetts, with only about 2% of electricity coming from solar, the industry’s potential for continued growth is immense.
Unfortunately, this exemplary progress is grinding to a halt due to caps on net metering, the mechanism which compensates solar owners for the clean electricity they deliver to the grid. For nearly a year, these caps have been reached across most of the Commonwealth without resolution – a fact familiar to far too many municipalities, schools, and businesses that have seen their projects and savings delayed or even cancelled.
We’ve been here before, but never for so long or with so much at stake. When the caps were last lifted in 2014, the Legislature simultaneously commissioned a task force to study net metering and make solar policy recommendations. The caps had already been reached again by the time the report was released, but the results were unequivocal: supporting solar and net metering is a tremendous investment for Massachusetts consumers, yielding well over $2 in benefits for every $1 put in. Study after study affirms the enormous benefit of more solar power for not only the environment, but for ratepayers and local economies as well.
Opponents of raising the net metering caps, eager to cite misleading claims about solar’s costs, too often ignore its benefits. Increased adoption of solar power is not a zero-sum game. When private solar developers choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in required utility infrastructure upgrades, for instance, the result is a cleaner, more resilient grid at no cost to ratepayers.
Unfortunately, our solar debate has devolved into simplistic soundbites, rather than a constructive discussion about how utilities and developers can collaborate to better serve Massachusetts customers. The truth is that solar policy in Massachusetts is as complicated as it is nuanced, but thoughtful consideration reveals several basic truths.
First, net metering is not an incentive. Instead, it is a mechanism through which the value of solar can be monetized and shared among ratepayers, giving rise to exciting and socially-impactful business models like community solar. With sound net metering policy, similar innovations will continue to emerge and drive our clean energy economy.
Next, draconian cuts to net metering rates such as those proposed under the current House bill are not only unnecessary, they would undermine the ability of municipalities, nonprofits, and those unable to install solar on their own property to realize the benefits of solar. In order to be feasible, projects would rely more, not less, on additional incentives like renewable energy credits, which can’t easily be shared among project stakeholders. We should avoid this perverse outcome.
Finally, solar has become a key driver of the Massachusetts economy, with much more room to grow still. This new and vibrant industry is increasingly attracting and retaining local talent from our leading colleges and universities. Moreover, thousands of electricians and construction professionals hit by the recession have found meaningful full-time employment at one of more than 400 solar companies and their contractors across the Commonwealth. We should take heed of the mistakes made in Nevada, where a sudden shift to wholesale compensation for net metering led to the loss of thousands of jobs in the state’s solar ecosystem. This cut was bad for business, bad for workers, bad for ratepayers, and bad for the environment.
Today, over 500 projects solar remain on hold, awaiting legislative action to raise the net metering caps. Together, they represent nearly 250 MW of generating capacity, well over half a billion dollars in deferred investment into local renewable energy sources, tens of millions of dollars in annual electricity savings for Massachusetts ratepayers, thousands of local jobs, and hundreds of metric tons of potential carbon emissions reductions for every hour the sun is shining.
Massachusetts is at a crossroads. A solar industry that attracted more than $800 million in investment into Massachusetts in 2015 alone faces a very uncertain 2016. Stable policy support has been the bedrock of our burgeoning clean energy economy. But with that support in question, companies like Nexamp – founded here in 2007 and now one of the region’s largest clean energy employers – are turning to new markets for opportunities to thrive.
Recently, a letter signed by over 100 members – more than 60 percent – of the Massachusetts House of Representatives was delivered to the conference committee tasked with resolving the current net metering impasse. The letter urged swift and sensible action, echoing the familiar sentiments of so many constituents with projects on hold. Massachusetts residents, businesses, schools, nonprofits, and municipalities want more solar, not less, and we should ensure that solar continues to be an option for them.
Please join me in thanking those on Beacon Hill who continue to push for action, and encouraging our lawmakers to lift the caps on net metering.
Zaid Ashai is Chairman and CEO of Nexamp, Inc.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
other than the obnoxious people calling my house, or the untrained people wanting to climb on my roof…..where are all the jobs related to solar, and how are they not transient jobs?
more importantly, paying excess generation based on the value of GENERATION isn’t “draconian” it is basic economics. If you over-generate in some hours while consuming in others you should NOT get a free ride from the grid. The same goes for municipalities who locate solar panels in one place but use electricity somewhere else, aren’t they still using the grid? Shouldn’t they still pay for that use? If I buy a car and drive it forward to work, then in reverse on the way home can I claim that I don’t put any miles on my car and don’t actually use the roads?
Can the grid run on solar alone? No! It needs the support of existing power plants for reliability.
Can a municipality run on solar alone? No! It needs the grid for backup and reliability.
Can a house with solar panels run without a grid connection? No! It needs the grid at night and for firming the supply during the day.
Since the answer to all three questions is No, there has to be a practical limit as to how much solar power the grid can handle before its reliability is challenged. So, with each political increase of the net metering cap, the challenge to the ISO-NE grid operators comes closer and closer to an unstable grid.
One need not be a genius to figure out that increasing the net metering cap indefinitely, does not only increase the overall cost because the grid still needs all of the original power to run, but at some point brownouts and blackouts become inevitable.
Practically none of the benefits of wind and solar power are attainable.
Tell Beacon Hill to STOP! Variable resources like wind and solar are not the answer to global warming.
No, NortheasternEE, that’s completely misleading, as I have pointed out (to you) time and time again.
Solar can’t win by itself, but with energy storage or with wind or both, and a large enough build-out, it can.
As indicated before, the “instability of the grid” is a chimera, because any grid that can support one or more nuclear power plants won’t even blink with the variability of wind and solar. That’s because a Pilgrim-like nuclear power plant can go offline without notice, withdrawing its 638 megawatts, which is a huge drop compared to the small individual variations of a constellation of solar and wind generators.
By the time such a constellation were built in Massachusetts, that is, one big enough to provide most of the state’s power, energy storage will be mature. Meanwhile, the existing fossil fuel generators can serve as stopgaps but eventually they can be retired.
Since, at present, solar generation accounts for but a tiny piece of Massachusetts energy, it is disingenuous to claim it raises electricity rates. In fact, Massachusetts rates have been consistently high since at least 2007, due to variability in methane and oil prices, well before solar was installed in a manner big enough to make an impact.
Because solar is such a tiny portion of energy generation, even if ALL the transmission costs for such residences and community solar were given to them free of charge, which no one is proposing, they could not make a significant difference in overall costs for everyone.
Moreover, the idea that residences with solar PV are somehow freeloaders on the backs of everyone else is an accounting and legal fiction. The physics of the matter is that any spare electrons generated by a home are consumed by neighbors close to the home, not some far away consumer. Accordingly, individual solar owners use very little of the transmission real estate of the grid, and should therefore not be expected to pay for much of it. True, for any energy they do need above what their system generates, they do use the grid. But that’s just the formula involved in net metering.
The problem with utilities and the grid is that it was designed for central generation and distributed consumption. In addition to adding storage, like New York State is doing, the sensible thing is to redesign the grid so it consists of a large number of clusters of generators and consumers, where most of the energy needed by a cluster is generated by a cluster. If a cluster needs more, they can either borrow from an adjacent one, or from a central hub. Over time, the need for the hub will diminish.
Wind is an important component, because it blows when there is no sun.
Great article, Mr Ashai! As has been noted elsewhere, this is not only good for Massachusetts, if Massachusetts does NOT adopt this program, it will lose business and jobs to an increasingly competitive New York State and Rhode Island next door. As noted, many high tech businesses have out of state customers with strict sustainability goals who insist that by 2025-2030 ALL their supply chain source their energy from zero Carbon generators.
The solar industry in MA must find private market mechanisms to keep the growth going. Our neighbor in Maine is currently looking at a way to make private capital markets through the Maine PUC pay for solar. A phase out of net metering over 10 years is proposed. The REC then phase into a private capital market exchange. After an industry has received millions in taxpayer and utility ratepayer dollars, a phase out to the private sector is in order. Even this plan is being fought by big solar companies. Hopefully for us taxpayers, MA we will adopt a similar approach.
I would add that all new future big solar projects in MA and in the nation have a resiliency back up system. This should be part of any new law.
Thank you,
Bill Tobin
Wtobin48@verizon.net
You are overstating the grid’s ability to support variability. When the weather changes, for which New England is famous, It’s not just one or two small installations that can go offline, We are talking about the potential for all solar, or all wind, or both going off line. Without a cap, that could easily be more than half the grid’s capacity. That comes to about 20,000 MW.
So instead of having provisions to cover one or two 600 MW Pilgrims going offline occasionally, we are talking about covering the possibility of the equivalent of 15 to 30 Pilgrim size power plants dropping off the grid in short order.
Include a battery with enough capacity to smooth out power fluctuations due to weather, and I withdraw my objections.
It seems to me that the extensive grid is needed for intermittents like solar, especially at high rates of solar participation. Lets say that there is a large neighborhood where just about everyone has solar PV. At peak generation times your excess is not going to your next door neighbor because they are generating excess also, it is going to a consumer far away via the grid. The same thing happens after sunset, your next door neighbor isn’t producing electricity, in fact no one in you whole neighborhood is producing, so everyone’s electricity now comes from far away via the grid (a grid that no one in the neighborhood wants to pay for).
Sure, wind may help this situation but the wind doesn’t always blow. Of course there is the storage option and this has a cost. Seems like widespread solar PV is the gift that keeps on costing…….batteries ( DOER is already spending $10 million on a energy storage study) ……and then grid upgrades like new wires, transformer stations, etc.
More should be spent on predictable, reliable, 24/7 Massachusetts in-state hydro
I agree, Jan! Renewable energy is the path to our future and solar, in particular, has been a great success story in Massachusetts. The attitude on Beacon Hill and continued inaction is not only putting nearly 16,000 jobs at risk and straining municipality and town budgets while they await projects on hold, but is also compounding the issue of climate change that we so urgently need to address. As NASA Scientist, Jim Hansen, stated on March 22nd “without a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level is likely to increase “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist
If our legislators understood this sense of urgency, we would not have an arbitrary cap on solar. We would be applauding and attracting every renewable energy developer in and to Massachusetts. I want to live in a Massachusetts that LEADS at a time when we desperately need it. At the present time, there is a mere 5% TOTAL of renewable energy on our grid. In other states, when you utilities are incentivized properly, this is multiplied. New York State is turning into a powerful renewable energy leader. Are Massachusetts legislatures going to sit by and watch them boom while our industry stagnates and jobs migrate? I truly hope not.