Alabama Power just filed a rate case proposing to eliminate net metering entirely and replace it with a "buy-all, sell-all" arrangement at wholesale rates. They want to pay $0.024/kWh for solar exports while charging $0.139/kWh for consumption. This would kill the solar industry in Alabama overnight. I have 12 solar clients who would see their payback periods triple. Anyone dealt with similar attacks on net metering? Need strategies for PSC intervention.
Alabama Power Trying to Eliminate Net Metering - Need Help
Albert, Duke Energy tried something similar in North Carolina in 2013. The key is demonstrating that existing customers have reasonable expectation of rate stability based on their investment decisions. We filed intervener status with economic analysis showing solar customers actually reduce grid costs through peak shaving. The PSC ultimately rejected Duke's proposal.
Arizona went through this exact battle with APS and Salt River Project. The utilities always claim solar customers are "subsidized" by non-solar customers, but independent studies show the opposite. Solar adds grid value through reduced transmission costs and peak demand reduction. You need third-party analysis to counter their propaganda.
Albert, similar fight happening with Duke Energy Ohio right now. The solar industry association hired Crossborder Energy to do a distributed solar value study. Cost about $45K but provided rock-solid evidence that solar provides $0.16/kWh in grid benefits. Might be worth pooling resources with other solar advocates in Alabama to commission similar analysis.
Great suggestions everyone. I've contacted the Alabama Solar Association and we're organizing intervener status for the rate case. Derek, do you have contacts at the consulting firm you used in NC? We need economic analysis that shows solar's grid benefits. The PSC hearing is scheduled for June - not much time to build our case.
I'll send you the contact info for our economist. Dr. Wilson at NC State did excellent work quantifying avoided transmission and distribution costs. His methodology has been accepted by multiple state PUCs. Also recommend reaching out to Vote Solar - they have template testimony for net metering value cases.
Albert, we just went through this with TEP in Arizona. The utility's cost-of-service study was complete garbage - they allocated 100% of transmission costs to solar customers while ignoring peak demand benefits. Make sure you challenge their methodology line by line. Happy to share our rebuttal testimony if it helps.
Linda, that would be incredibly helpful! Alabama Power's filing uses similar flawed methodology - they claim solar customers use the grid "for free" while ignoring the fact that distributed generation reduces grid stress. Derek connected me with Dr. Wilson and we're working on economic rebuttal testimony. This forum is invaluable.
Following this case closely from Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas is making similar noises about net metering "reform." If Alabama Power succeeds, it'll embolden utilities across the South to attack net metering. You're fighting for all of us, Albert. Let me know if you need additional intervener support.
Helen, appreciate the support. We've filed comprehensive rebuttal testimony showing solar provides $0.142/kWh in grid benefits - actually more than the retail rate. Alabama Power's own data shows system peak coincides perfectly with solar generation peak. Their "cost shift" argument falls apart under scrutiny.
Albert, excellent work on the testimony. TVA is watching Alabama's case closely since it could affect their Green Power Providers program. The economic analysis approach is exactly right - you can't win these fights on emotion alone, need hard data showing solar's grid value.
PSC hearing was last week. Alabama Power's witnesses couldn't defend their cost allocation methodology under cross-examination. Our economist demolished their "cost shift" claims with actual data. Fingers crossed - PSC decision expected by end of April.
Victory! PSC rejected Alabama Power's net metering elimination proposal. They adopted a compromise with small monthly fee ($5.41) but preserved retail rate credit for net excess generation. Not perfect, but maintains viability of residential solar. Thanks everyone for the support and resources!
Outstanding result, Albert! That $5.41 fee is annoying but manageable. More importantly, you've created precedent showing that comprehensive economic analysis can defeat utility attacks on net metering. This case will be cited for years to come.