A cost-benefit study of net metering in Missouri recently arrived at the same conclusion as similar studies in Vermont, New York, Texas and Nevada: for utility customers, net metering is a net benefit.
While utilities often argue that net metering amounts to ratepayers subsidizing solar installations for a handful of customers, the Missouri Energy Initiative found otherwise.
Even accounting for increased utility administrative costs and the shifting of some fixed expenses, the MEI study found that in each year from 2008 through 2013, customers overall came out ahead.
The study was meant for policymakers and rate-makers to dive into with an open mind and open eyes, and to know what key questions to ask, said MEIs executive director, Josh Campbell.
MEI is a non-profit organization with a board that includes representatives from utility companies as well as, academics, researchers and policymakers. The organizations website says it aims to be Missouris trusted source for information and solutions about innovative, reliable, clean and sustainable energy for Missouri and the world.
The net metering study comes just a few months before a statewide committee is scheduled to produce a report offering a vision for Missouris energy future. In 2014, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed an executive order calling for the development of the states first comprehensive energy plan, due by May 31.
Campbell said the net metering study got underway before the state energy plan, and was launched because the growth of net-metered systems was increasingly drastically and a large debate centered around the impact of net metered units to non-net metered units, as well as the overall grid.
Currently, about 6,000 Missouri electric customers net-meter their power use and production. The vast majority of them are customers of the states two largest investor-owned utilities, Ameren Missouri and Kansas City Power & Light.
Campbell hopes the studys findings will provide lawmakers and regulators the basic information they can build on and make better policy decisions that, hopefully, will result in less legal fighting, more collaboration and better policy for everyone.
As it has elsewhere, distributed generation has been the subject of much dispute in Missouri. Although the state passed a renewable portfolio standard in 2008, Ameren and KCP&L in 2013 and 2014 announced that they had met a state cap for spending, and received permission from Missouris Public Service Commission to stop paying rebates. A lawsuit against the commission is pending.
Missouris other investor-owned utility, the Empire District Electric Co., got a bill passed in May 2008 that would exempt it from any solar rebates. On Feb. 10, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned that law.
The Missouri Energy Initiatives study waded into the murky and turbulent net-metering waters by putting dollar values to two costs and two benefits of net metering. One cost is the expense for the utility to set up solar customers in a new type of account, estimated at $187 per account. The other is the amount of fixed costs no longer paid by solar customers and thereby shifted to customers without solar panels.
Using previous net-metering studies as guideposts, Campbell said his board chose to estimate that the typical solar customers pays 20 percent less towards fixed costs as a result of generating some solar energy.
The benefits quantified in the study are the reduced power required due to less customer demand, and the reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The utilities provided estimates of money saved by reduced power purchases. Campbell put the value of avoided greenhouse gas emissions at $15 a ton based on trading in global carbon markets.
Although there are a number of other costs and benefits associated with net metering, Campbell said he chose to focus on areas where he could get reliable data, and on issues like cross-subsidization, that raised questions among customers and utilities.
And while the report found that net metering provided a benefit to all ratepayers, it didnt put a dollar figure to that outcome.
In light of the variables and assumptions that went into the study, Campbell said, We didnt feel comfortable enough to put a hard number in there. But we did feel comfortable that everything is in the public domain, and that if you accept the assumptions we made, it was a positive outcome.
Authors of cost-benefit assessments in a couple other states felt no such reservations. A 2013 study in Vermont calculated that a 4-kW fixed system provides a 4.3-cent net societal benefit per kWh generated.
Source: Midwest Energy News
View all SMART GRID Bulletins click here
Enter your email-id to subscribe to theSMARTGRID Bulletins
14 June 2017