2019 in review

Here's a roundup of some of the items published on this blog in 2019 that have drawn significant interest:

• The enactment of a portfolio of Maine energy legislation that significant reformed the state's electricity renewable portfolio standard, long-term contracting programs, net energy billing program, and climate policy.
• Increasing public recognition that most of Maine's greenhouse gas emissions arise from the direct combustion of fossil fuels in the transportation and heating sectors, and the need to reduce transportation- and heating-related efforts through "beneficial electrification" or other means.
• Action by the United States to withdraw from the United Nations' Paris Climate Agreement.
• A federal proposal to "reform PURPA" or amend regulations adopted in implementation of a federal law designed to encourage cogeneration and renewable power production.
• Offshore wind procurement processes in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
• Growth in deployment of electric energy storage, following federal regulators' adoption of rules and state legislatures' enactment of incentive programs.
• Federal regulation and enforcement of market manipulation and mandatory reliability standards for the bulk electric system.
• A federal appellate court ruling, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, reshaping a common practice in hydropower licensing by holding that the states and applicants for water quality certifications cannot indefinitely stall federal time limits for state action by repeatedly withdrawing and resubmitting their applications.

Will these trends continue in 2020?

Will Maine change its net metering law?

Several pieces of proposed Maine legislation could affect the state's version of net metering. Here's a quick look at Maine's net energy billing policy, how it could change, and what that might mean for consumers.

Maine's electricity rules allow consumers with certain distributed generation facilities (like solar panels) to elect "net energy billing." Like other forms of net metering, the basic concept is that consumers can use their on-site generation to offset their purchases of electricity from the grid, both in real time, and by banking credits for power exported to the grid during periods of time when on-site generation exceeds the consumer's load.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission first adopted a net energy billing rule in the 1980s, allowing customers to net imports and exports within any month or other billing period, in recognition that consumers should not be required to install an extra meter to measure exports from small renewable power facilities and other distributed generation. In 1998, the Commission revised its rule to allow annualized netting as a means of encouraging the use of small-scale renewable technologies designed primarily to serve the customer’s own needs.

In 2017, the Commission revised its rule to reduce the benefits of net metering for future projects, both by reducing the credit for nettable energy, and by shifting the state to a "gross metering" paradigm. Under gross metering, which has been called "one of the strangest and most regressive policies for valuing residential solar in the United States," utilities collect charges even for power generated and consumed on-site in real time. While the Commission later granted an exemption from its gross metering policy for most medium and large customers after finding that the cost of installing an extra meter (estimated at over $3,000 per installation) wasn't justified, the revised rule remains on the books for now.

But further possible changes to net energy billing figure among the numerous energy issues implicated by the list of legislation proposed for the Maine State Legislature's 2019 session. Several bills that have been printed so far suggest that the Legislature will consider various bills that would eliminate gross metering (like LD 91, An Act to Eliminate Gross Metering and LD 143, An Act To Protect Electric Ratepayers from Gross Output Metering Costs), or would replace net energy billing with a market-based mechanism (like LD 41, An Act To Replace Net Energy Billing with a Market-based Mechanism), among other measures. Other bill titles suggest possible changes to the state's policy on shared ownership net metering, which allows multiple customers to offset their load with generation from a community solar project or other off-site facility.

The Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology will schedule public hearings on these bills. The Committee has scheduled public hearings on LD 41 and LD 91 for 1:00 p.m. on January 29, 2019.

Maine net energy billing rules, 2017 revision

On January 31, 2017, the Maine Public Utilities Commission adopted revisions to its rule chapter 313, governing net energy billing.  Net metering, or net energy billing, is the metering and billing mechanism that Maine and most other states have adopted to promote the development of solar photovoltaic and other distributed renewable energy facilities.  While the Commission first adopted a net energy billing rule in the early 1980s, its 2017 revisions to that rule reduce the benefits of net metering for future projects.  Here's a look at Maine's revised net energy billing rules.

The Commission described its actions in a written order dated March 1, and published its final rule on the same date.   Most notably, the Commission reduced the amount of future generation facility output that can be netted against its transmission and distribution utility bill -- by first introducing, then reducing, a concept called "nettable energy."  Nettable energy is now the entire amount of energy generated by the facility, including the amount consumed by a customer “behind-the-meter”.  This shift -- from netting on a net basis, to netting on a gross basis -- is a significant change in state policy that is unfavorable for behind-the-meter generation.

As before, a net energy billing customer with solar or other eligible generation may offset all of its energy supply bill with its nettable energy.  But the Commission's new rule phases out the former 100% crediting of net energy for transmission and distribution charges.  Depending on the year into which a project is placed in service, the new rule reduces the portion of the "nettable output" -- what counts for netting -- by 10% in each of the next 10 years, reaching 0% T&D crediting for customers that become net energy billing customers after calendar year 2026.  The result is a gradual reduction of the incentive to net energy bill.  (Note that once a customer becomes a net energy billing customer, its rate treatment will generally last for 15 years.  Likewise, existing net energy billing customers may continue to net bill under the previous rule's approach for a 15-year period, after which they could continue to net for supply but not for T&D.)

The Commission also added a section covering renewable energy credit (REC) aggregation.  Section 4 of Chapter 313 provides that new customers in 2018 and after may elect to have the RECs or environmental attributes of project power be aggregated by their local investor-owned utility for sale into the regional market, with the proceeds returned to participating customers.  The Commission described its decision to include a REC aggregation program as "an effort to obtain on an optional basis a value stream that is not currently being monetized."  If small renewable projects would qualify for RECs, but are either not doing so or are not selling the RECs, REC aggregation options may allow some projects to connect with the market.  On the other hand, by selling the RECs, the project owner or power consumer cannot claim to have consumed green electricity, so there are tradeoffs.

The Commission did not change some other aspects of the rule, such as maximum project size (660 kW) or its limit on the number of accounts or meters permissible under a single net energy billing arrangement (10).  It noted, "Fundamental changes to NEB in Maine and promotional programs for larger renewable and community solar projects are the purview of the Legislature as a matter of State energy policy."

Based on a list of legislative requests, the state legislature will consider at least 12 bills relating to solar energy in its 2017 session.

On March 10, the Commission published a Frequently Asked Questions document covering the Chapter 313 net metering rules.  The FAQ provides answers to 10 questions, ranging from why the Commission changed the rule, to providing specific examples of how much nettable energy a customer would be able to claim depending on the year in which its project was placed in service.

Maine opens net metering inquiry

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has issued a Notice of Inquiry to obtain feedback on whether its net energy billing rules should be modified, or other action taken to affect Maine's net metering policy.

Rooftop solar panels on a Maine business.

Under Chapter 313 of the Commission's rules, Maine electricity customers may net the output of qualified solar panels or other distributed generation resources against their utility loads.  To date, this rate treatment, known as "net energy billing," has been a major incentive for the development of solar photovoltaic and other customer-sited renewable energy projects in Maine.  Most other U.S. jurisdictions have adopted similar net metering programs.

But the Maine regulations provide for a review by the Commission of its rules once a utility gives notice that net metered capacity reaches 1% of peak demand.  Maine transmission and distribution utility Central Maine Power Company gave that notice earlier this year.

At a deliberative session held on June 14, the Commission unanimously decided to initiate an inquiry into the matter.  The Commission's 4-page Notice of Inquiry seeks comment and information on a list of specific issues related to the net metering rules.  Issues identified in that notice include possible changes to the value of net metering credits or the kinds of customer generating facilities may be net metered, grandfathering of existing systems, the adoption of consumer protection standards, and an alternative contracting structure:

1. In what respects (if at all) should Chapter 313 be revised, and what objective is each such revision intended to achieve?

2. In what respects (if at all) should there be revisions to the retail rate components that are netted such that less than the full retail rate (T&D and supply) would be netted, and what objectives are such revisions intended to achieve?

3. Should the Commission consider changes in the current kWh (660kW) threshold for qualified projects? What is the rationale for such a change?

4. If there are revisions to NEB, should existing NEB customers be “grandfathered” with respect to any future changes that affect NEB? Please provide the rationale for your answer, and, if yes, for how long should customers be grandfathered?

5. How can an NEB program be designed to track changes in the costs of distributed generation facilities?

6. Should issues of revenue loss and rate impacts be addressed through T&D utility rate design? How should rate design be approached--through cost of service, avoided cost, or a value of solar approach? Please discuss any equity issues that might arise from these approaches.

7. With respect to the structural app roach discussed in the Commission’s Report to the Legislature Regarding Market-Based Solar Policy Design Stakeholder Process Pursuant to Resolves 2015, ch. 37 (Jan. 30, 2016) (which was the basic structural approach that was considered by the Legislature last session through LD 1649) in which the output from solar facilities would be purchased and re-sold into the wholesale market, please comment on the statutory authority under which the Commission could implement such an approach. In the event the Commission has the statutory authority, should the Commission pursue such an approach and, if so, how should the purchase price be established for the various distributed generation resources that participate in NEB?

8. Should solar PV be treated differently than other NEB eligible resources with regard to any changes that might be adopted to the program?

9. How should any changes to NEB arising from CMP’s January 14, 2016 letter request for review apply to Emera Maine and the consumer-owned utilities?

10. Does the Commission have statutory authority to regulate or oversee lease arrangements or other custom er agreements that involve NEB? If so, should the Commission consider additional consumer protection standards with respect to distributed generation lease programs or other customer arrangements (i.e., sales of community solar project shares)?

11. Please comment on any other issues related to NEB?

The Commission requested comments on these issues by July 22, 2016.  Public comment and information will help inform the Commission's review of its Chapter 313 rules.

Maine to consider net metering rules

The Maine Public Utilities Commission is set to consider opening an inquiry into the state's net energy billing rules, which allow electric utility customers to offset their load with distributed generation.

Under Maine's form of net metering, customers with qualifying distributed electric generation may net the power they produce against their consumption of power from the grid.  The Maine Public Utilities Commission adopted rules governing this "net energy billing" or net metering arrangement, which is a key incentive for customer-scale solar photovoltaic projects in Maine.

But those rules, found in Chapter 313 of the Commission's regulations, provide for an agency review of net metering as more customers go solar or participate in other net-metered distributed generation.  Earlier this year, Maine transmission and distribution utility Central Maine Power Company notified the Commission that the cumulative capacity of net metered generating facilities in its service territory had exceeded 1 percent of annual peak demand.  By rule, this notification will trigger a review by the Commission "to determine whether net energy billing ... should continue or be modified."

The Commission has now placed consideration of a Notice of Inquiry related to this item on its agenda for deliberations on June 14, 2016.

Maine utility requests net metering review

Maine transmission and distribution company Central Maine Power Company has asked the Maine Public Utilities Commission to review whether the state's net metering program should continue or be modified.

Maine allows customers with qualifying distributed electric generation to net the power they produce against their consumption of power from the grid.  The Maine Public Utilities Commission adopted rules governing this "net energy billing" or net metering arrangement.  Most customer-scale solar photovoltaic projects in Maine rely on net energy billing, including those located in the service territory of utility Central Maine Power or CMP.

One provision of those rules, found in Section 3(J) of Chapter 313, provides for regulatory review of net metering once a utility reaches a threshold of installed net metering capacity:

A transmission and distribution utility shall notify the Commission if the cumulative capacity of generating facilities subject to the provisions of this Chapter reaches 1.0 percent of its peak demand. Upon notification, the Commission will review this Chapter to determine whether net energy billing pursuant to this Chapter should continue or be modified.

On January 14, 2016, CMP filed a letter with the Maine Commission requesting that the Commission undertake the review of net energy billing described in Section 3(J) of Chapter 313.  In support of that request, CMP notes:

As of the end of calendar year 2015, the cumulative capacity of the generating facilities for which CMP has net energy billing agreements under Chapter 313 is approximately 1.04% of CMP’s annual peak demand. The 1.04% is based upon the ratio of 16.261/1,565.300, where the numerator is the megawatts of nameplate capacity of contracted net energy billing facilities and the denominator represents the Company’s 2015 annual hourly peak demand.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has docketed CMP's request as 2015-00008.  At the same time, the Commission is concluding a months-long legislatively mandated stakeholder process to consider alternatives to net energy billing, after which the Commission is scheduled to present a report to the state's legislative energy committee.

These two proceedings have different direct origins, but their effects could be similar.  CMP's letter under Chapter 313 says it was triggered by growth of enrolled net metering capacity, while the stakeholder process resulted from a direct legislative requirement.  Nevertheless both proceedings may affect the future of net metering in Maine.

Maine report on distributed solar

A report by staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission to a working group convened by New England's electric grid operator describes growth in Maine's solar and other distributed generation resources. The report highlights faster growth in solar resources than some previous forecasts, at the same time that Maine reevaluates its solar net metering policies.

Under existing Maine law, electric utility consumers who develop solar energy projects can choose "net energy billing."  This net metering rate structure lets the customer offset its load from the grid by its own solar power production, with the utility bill based on the customer's net draw from the utility.  In the words of the Maine legislature, "net energy billing is a simple mechanism that has supported the development of distributed generation in Maine."  It is the principle state incentive for residential solar photovoltaic development.

Regional grid operator ISO New England, Inc. has convened a Distributed Generation Forecast Working Group to provide input on the region's long-term distributed generation forecast.  Staff from the Maine Public Utilities Commission recently presented to the working group on Maine's distributed generation growth. According to the December 8 report, solar PV makes up 78% of reported net metering capacity and is the fastest growing component.

The Maine Commission also submitted a forecast developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of "Distributed PV Adoption in Maine through 2021".  Its predicts growth curves for Maine distributed solar generation under several scenarios:

 

But Maine is in the midst of a reevaluation of its solar energy policy.  In 2015, the legislature enacted a Resolve, "To Create Sustainable Growth in Maine's Distributed Energy Sector That Uses Market Forces To Fairly Compensate Energy Producers" (H.P. 863 - L.D. 1263, 2015).  That Resolve found that "net energy billing may not provide a suitable long-term foundation for distributed generation."

As a result, it directed the the Maine Public Utilities Commission to initiate a Solar Policy Design Stakeholder Process to develop "an alternative to net energy billing that fairly and transparently allocates the costs and benefits of distributed generation to all customers, allows participation by all customers and creates a sustainable platform for future growth of distributed generation to the benefit of all ratepayers."

The Commission stakeholder process is ongoing, under Docket 2015-00218.

Maine considers net metering alternative

The Maine Office of the Public Advocate has proposed a new mechanism to encourage the development of solar energy capacity in the state.

Under Maine’s existing law, customers with onsite generation may choose “net energy billing” treatment. Similar to “net metering” policies in other states, Maine’s program gives eligible consumers credit for the power they send back to the grid from their onsite generation. Presently, the value of that credit varies with the applicable retail electricity rate.

But according to the Public Advocate, Maine’s version of net metering raises concerns including net metering customers’ uncertainty over the future value of power, the potential for cost-shifting to non-net metered customers, and a lack of transparency.

In its white paper, “A Ratepayer Focused Strategy for Distributed Solar in Maine”, the Office of the Public Advocate offers an alternative to Maine’s existing net metering program. It envisions policies to support development of two types of solar energy projects in Maine: customer-sited systems and wholesale systems.

For customer-sited systems, the white paper proposes a “Solar Standard Buyer” to serve as an aggregator of the attributes solar energy can provide. Customers would enter into a Customer-sited Solar Contract or CSC, a fixed-price, 20-year contract with the solar aggregator. As under Maine’s existing net metering structure, the “payment” to customers would be based on a per kWh rate that would appear as a monthly bill credit on the customer’s bill. Under the Public Advocate’s vision, the level of compensation would be capped at $0.20/kWh.

As more solar capacity comes online in Maine, the Public Advocate proposes incremental “step downs” in the CSC contract price paid to solar customers. Both the payments to customers under a CSC and the revenues received through this aggregation and sale would be credited to all customers through transmission and distribution utilities’ existing stranded cost mechanisms.

For wholesale systems between 1 megawatt and 5 megawatts in scale, the white paper envisions that the Commission would solicit competitive bids, with the ultimate purchaser being the Solar Standard Buyer. The white paper notes an expectation that economies of scale will enable these larger, utility-side solar projects to reduce the price per kilowatt-hour to Maine’s non-participating ratepayers. It proposes to compensate developers of wholesale systems at a fixed rate, with contracts procured by the state’s utilities through bi-annual competitive processes.

The Public Advocate suggests that its proposal is consistent with recent analysis of the value of solar energy in Maine. Pursuant to the 2014 “Act to Support Solar Energy Development in Maine”, the Maine Public Utilities Commission developed a methodology for determining the value of distributed solar energy generation in the state. Its Maine Distributed Solar Valuation Study, released this spring, provided a methodology for estimating the cost and benefits of solar, values for each cost and benefit, and options to encourage solar adoption within Maine’s existing utility framework.

According to the Public Advocate’s white paper, its proposal could drive up to 300 MW of new solar capacity in Maine by 2025.  It has been characterized as an addition to net metering, not a replacement.  But the Maine Public Utilities Commission continues to evaluate Maine’s solar energy policies.  Its process could have outcomes ranging from continuation of Maine's net energy billing programs to the creation of some new mechanism to address solar and distributed generation's integration into the grid.

Commercial fishing and solar energy

Commercial fishing businesses tend to consume significant amounts of energy, but may be able to offset their energy expenses by turning to solar panels and other distributed electric generation.

The winter fishing fleet of Northeast Harbor, Maine.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. commercial fishing sector landed $5.3 billion in seafood last year.  Alaska led the nation in total catch value in 2011, landing $1.9 billion in fish and shellfish.  Massachusetts came in second at $570 million, with Maine coming in third at $426 million.

Catching this seafood comes at a price.  Diesel and other marine fuels account for a significant fraction of commercial fishermen's expenses.  Onshore, electricity powers stationary facilities like freezers, refrigerators and pumps for holding tanks, with seafood processing operations consuming even more power.

The location of many commercial fishing businesses -- typically located on the coast, often on a pier or wharf exposed to the sun and wind -- may create an opportunity for fishermen to offset their energy costs by producing their own electricity.  One Maine lobsterman recently added a 10-kilowatt solar array to his wharf in Harpswell. Funded in part by an $11,750 grant through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Energy for America Program, last month Potts Harbor Lobster added 44 solar panels to two roofs on the Reversing Falls Lobster wharf in South Harpswell.

In addition to USDA REAP grants, additional incentives are available that may shorten the payback period for distributed generation projects at commercial fishing facilities.  For example, Maine's net energy billing law allows consumers to use solar or other distributed generation to effectively spin their electricity meters backwards.  Consumers in almost every state can use similar net metering programs to sell excess power back to the grid, offsetting their electricity bill.  Other states, like Massachusetts and New Jersey, allow consumers to produce and sell solar renewable energy credits (sometimes called SRECs) from grid-connected solar photovoltaic panels.  These SREC sales can create a significant revenue stream for people and businesses who develop qualified renewable power projects.

Not every site may be well-suited for distributed generation projects.  Given relatively high capital costs for many small renewable power projects, payback periods may be too long for some businesses to make the investment.  However, as the cost of electric transmission increases across the country, the traditionally self-reliant fishing industry may increasingly turn to solar energy and other distributed generation technologies.

Net metering and utility charges

As more electricity customers are installing solar panels and other distributed generation, many are participating in net metering programs under which they can run their utility meter backwards -- but utilities are complaining that net metering customers don't pay their share of the grid's operating costs.

In states and utility territories where net metering is allowed, customers can use eligible distributed generation (typically renewable generation like solar photovoltaic or small-scale wind, or micro combined heat and power) to offset their consumption of electricity from the grid.  Even if the customer draws power from the grid at some times and injects power back onto the grid at other times, net metering or net energy billing allows the customer to offset distributed generation against purchases. 

While many states embrace net metering as a policy, some utilities complain that net metering customers can be free riders.  If a customer's solar panels produce as much power in a month as the customer consumed, net metering could credit that customer with a zero utility bill - even though at various times times, the customer relied on the grid for imports and exports.  As a result, some utilities are seeking to impose new charges on customers for net metering.  For example, last fall Virginia regulators approved part of utility Dominion's request to impose "standby" charges on certain net metering customers.  Solar advocates and other distributed generation interests typically oppose such charges as roadblocks to achieving the societal benefits of net metering.

The issue continues to simmer around the country.  California utility San Diego Gas & Electric Co. recently proposed adding a "network use charge" onto customers' bills.  SDG&E's concept was that the charge -- about $22 per month for the average net metering customer with a solar PV system -- would properly allocate the cost of maintaining the grid to these customers.  The utility argued that without the charge, net energy metering customers were being subsidized by all other customers.  Earlier this year, California regulators rejected the idea (see the 16-page order at the California Public Utilities Commission website), noting concerns that the proposed charge "may be inconsistent with current law, regardless of whether it is justified by cost causation principles or an analysis of the crosssubsidies inherent in current policies."  As a result, SDG&E refiled its rate application without the charge.

Maine net energy billing

Maine's net energy billing program gives electricity consumers have the opportunity to offset their electric bill by generating electricity themselves.  This not only supports small-scale and some community-based renewable and efficient electric generation, but can provide customers a significant financial incentive.

Net energy billing is Maine's form of net metering, which allows electric customers with small-scale wind generators, solar panels or other renewable and efficient generation units to sell the power they produce to the utility grid.  In exchange, the utility banks credits that are used to offset the customer's bill for power purchased from the grid.  If the customer generates more electricity in a month than it uses, credits can be banked and carried forward for a 12-month period to offset future bills.

Net energy billing customers can not only sell their power to the grid and bank it for later, but also receive a favorable exchange rate.  Most electric generators who sell to the grid are paid a relatively low wholesale rate, but net energy billing customers are credited at the higher retail rate.  This can provide participating customers a significant financial edge, and could be used to enhance the value of existing community-scale renewable generation such as a small hydroelectric facility.

Maine has offered various forms of net metering since 1987, making it an early leader in the practice.  Many other states have adopted net metering programs, and Congress has directed states to make net metering available to consumers.  Maine's net energy billing program has evolved over time, and now applies to a variety of technologies including solar photovoltaics, wind, biomass, small hydroelectric, hydrokinetic or tidal, geothermal electric, renewable-based fuel cells, and micro-combined heat and power (micro-CHP).

Maine's net energy billing program has several special features.  Generation projects don't have to be located at the same place as the net metering customer.  Maine allows virtual net metering, where a generator meter can be netted against its owner's meter no matter where each is located, as long as both are in the same utility's service territory.

Maine also allows customers to pool together to develop a net metering project.  This so-called "shared ownership billing" allows multiple customers with an ownership interest in a project to share in the benefits of net metering, and may enable more cost-effective projects through the economies of scale.

On top of all this, customers can combine the benefits of net metering with other incentives.  For example, such as grant and rebate funding for qualified projects through state-level energy offices or program support through several federal agencies.

Here are links to the net metering webpages of Maine's three large utilities: Central Maine Power, Bangor Hydro-Electric, and Maine Public Service.

Could net metering save municipal hydro?

Two dams on the Royal River in Yarmouth, Maine are one step closer to removal, as a majority of the town council agreed earlier this month that the dams should be removed.  The town owns two dams near Bridge Street and East Elm Street, which provided mechanical power to mills as early as 1816.  The Sparhawk Mill site near Bridge Street was upgraded to produce hydroelectricity in 1984, and operates as a privately-owned hydroelectric project exempt from most Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulation.  Yarmouth has considered dam removal for several years, with concerns over fish habitat restoration as the driving factor.

The push to remove the dams comes despite the value of the sites' ability to generate renewable electricity.  A consultant hired by the town in 2010 estimated that the Bridge Street site could theoretically produce over $150,000 in annual hydropower revenues (7 page PDF), with $55,000 being a more realistic estimate of practical production from the existing facilities if they could be repaired and maintained.  In reaching this figure, the report assumed the then-current energy price of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).  The report also assumed that the project could qualify for net metering, which the report defined as "unused power is purchased by the utility".

Maine's style of net metering at present is slightly different from that suggested in the report.  Under what Maine calls net energy billing, the owner of eligible renewable or micro combined heat and power (CHP) equipment can use the generation facility to offset its consumption of electricity from the grid, effectively running its electric meter backwards.  If a customer generates more electricity than it uses in any given month, the utility banks the excess amount as credits to be used within the next year.

One advantage gained by a net metering customer is that when generation offsets consumption, the customer saves on more than just the energy component of its electric bill.  In Maine's electricity market, customers pay for both the energy they use and what it costs to deliver that energy over transmission and distribution wires.  Today, the standard offer energy price for residential and small commercial customers in Central Maine Power's territory (including Yarmouth) is 7.4 cents per kWh.  The Maine Public Utilities Commission reports that delivery fees add another 6.47 cents per kWh for residential customers, or 6.3 cents for small commercial customers.  Thus the total cost to these customers of buying electricity and having it delivered is closer to 13.7 cents per kWh - nearly double that assumed in the town's report.  This higher figure may more accurately reflect what the town could save by net metering the Sparhawk Mill project's output against its consumption.

Maine also allows more than one customer to cooperate in net metering.  One eligible generation project can be used to offset consumption on up to 10 customer accounts, provided the participating customers establish partial ownership or an entitlement to the part of the project's output.  This shared ownership net metering lets eligible projects reach their full potential, even when they can produce more electricity than the primary owner needs in a year.

If the town can take the full value of net metering into account and find a way to benefit from the existing renewable generation at the Sparhawk site, the economics would tip towards keeping the Sparhawk project running.  There are other ways that project revenues could be boosted by smart participation in other energy programs, such as selling capacity or renewable energy certificates (RECs) if the project can be certified as renewable.

Would reevaluating the Royal River dam's hydropower potential lead the town to a different conclusion on whether the dam should be removed?  The Yarmouth town council is holding a workshop session on January 5 and a public hearing on January 19 to discuss next steps.

Net metering charges in Virginia

Virginia regulators recently approved an electric utility's request to impose additional charges on net metering customers with rooftop solar panels or other customer-sited generation.

Net metering -- when utility customers can offset their electric bill by using their own generation -- is a tool to encourage the spread of small-scale generating resources.  Under net metering programs, customers are billed not based on how much electricity they buy from the grid over a given month, but rather based on their purchases netted against what they export from their own generation.  For example, a home or business with solar photovoltaic panels on its roof could use net metering to run its utility bill backwards to the point where the customer has no bill at all.  In some areas, customers can even run up a surplus of power through net metering.

Net metering facilitates distributed generation, in contrast to the centralized utility model that has historically prevailed.  Mixing in some distributed grid-tied generation has advantages for the whole system, such as a reduced need for expensive new transmission lines.  To promote the distributed model, Congress directed electric utilities to make net metering available as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Now, nearly all U.S. jurisdictions have net metering programs.  Each state's implementation of net metering is unique.  For example, under Virginia law, residential net meterers must pay their utility a "standby charge" -- a monthly amount to compensate the utility for the customer's ability to draw electricity from the grid, even beyond what would be charged under its net-metered bill. 

Earlier, I noted that utility Dominion Virginia Power had asked the Virginia State Corporation Commission to approve “standby” charges on residential net-metered solarphotovoltaic systems larger than 10 kW. Last month, the State Corporation Commission approved part of the utility's request.  The Commission approved a standby charge for transmission and distribution service - $2.79 per kW in monthly distribution standby charges and $1.40 per kW in monthly transmission standby charges.  The Commission denied Dominion's request for generation standby charges for now, but encouraged the utility to come back for another proceeding to determine whether a generation standby charge would be proper.