This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Decoupling and Distributed Energy

Zane Selvans's picture
Research and Policy Director Clean Energy Action
  • Member since 2014
  • 7 items added with 6,769 views
  • Dec 16, 2014
  • 1034 views

One of the main reasons utilities fight distributed generation like rooftop solar is that it erodes demand for their centrally generated electricity. Reduced demand is annoying for any business, but it’s especially bad for traditional monopoly utilities. It’s especially bad because much — even most — of the cost of producing a kWh of electricity doesn’t go away if you don’t produce that kWh of electricity. These so-called “fixed” or “non-production” costs come from multi-decade financial commitments to big pieces of infrastructure — the power plants, transmission lines, and distribution systems.

So when you put solar panels on your roof and reduce the amount of electricity you need to buy from the utility, there’s a little bit of fuel that doesn’t get burned, and a little bit of money saved on the utility side (but as we’ve pointed out before, they don’t actually benefit from that cost savings), but a lot of the money that the utility spent to be able to provide you with electricity if you needed it is already spent. This is problematic because most electricity rates are designed to recover utility costs in proportion to the amount of electricity you buy (this type of rate is known as a “volumetric rate”). So utilities have an incentive (known as the throughput incentive) to ensure that their electricity sales increase, or at the very least don’t decline.

If lots of people start buying much less electricity, this reduces utility spending on things like fuel, but it doesn’t have any effect (in the short term) on the fixed or non-production costs. To stay solvent, the utilities then go back to their regulators and say “Hey, we’re not getting enough revenue to cover our costs. Give us a rate hike!” and if the regulators agree, allowing the utilities to recover the same fixed costs from fewer overall kWh of electricity sold, this just makes it even more financially sensible for people to put solar panels on their roof, to avoid buying the more expensive electricity.  (And in our fantasy world, one could also imagine savvy regulators taking measures to decrease fixed costs, by forcing early retirement of risky, uneconomic fossil generation…)

This is the essence of the Utility Death Spiral that’s gotten so much attention over the last year or two (including a speakeasy we hosted), and which Dave Roberts did a great job of exploring in his Utilities for Dummies series over at Grist. From the Utility’s point of view the Death Spiral can be short-circuited with revenue decoupling… up to a point. With decoupling, they don’t have to go to regulators and ask for a rate hike — they can recover the fixed costs in a formulaic way, and so decoupled utilities are able to invest in energy efficiency without worrying about lost revenues.  They’re also likely to be less opposed to modest amounts of distributed generation.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a climate-aware utility of the future that isn’t decoupled.  We need to get away from utilities treating electricity (and energy more generally) as a commodity, with profits tied to the quantity of product they sell.  Instead, we need to move toward treating energy as a service — Amory Lovins’ famous hot showers and cold beer — with an incentive to provide high quality service using the least possible amount of underlying energy.

Decoupling is a Good Thing

However, if you care about climate, then you always have to ask not just Is this a good thing? but Is this good enough?  It’s an old cliché that “better is the enemy of good enough,” — i.e. spending time and money and effort on improvement beyond what’s good enough can be wasteful.  But in the context of climate, we have the opposite problem.  Moving things in the right direction can still mean abject failure.  Plenty of things that are better than the status quo — like decoupling utility revenues, or burning natural gas instead of coal —  come nowhere close to being good enough to keep us from seeing more than 2°C of warming.

To have a chance of stabilizing the climate, the utility business model can’t just be tinkered with.  It needs to be radically transformed.  The good news is that radical transformation is probably on the table whether the utilities want to talk about it or not.  Our task is to make it happen as quickly and smoothly as possible.

Courtesy of Gigasolar on Flickr.
Courtesy of Gigasolar on Flickr.

Utility Death Spiral: Not Just for the Paranoid

Until very recently anybody afraid of the death spiral dynamic might have seemed a little paranoid. DG was still pretty expensive, and often dependent on utility rebate programs, tax credits, and other incentives that were often controlled by regulators and utilities.  As the price of distributed solar has fallen, rebates have dwindled to nothing, and new financing mechanisms and business models have emerged. Utilities and regulators have lost some of their ability to moderate deployment, and they’re poised to lose much more.

A few examples of new DG financing and business arrangements compiled by Green Tech Media and others:

  • Mosaic has created a peer-to-peer lending platform that lets individuals invest in diversified portfolios of smaller distributed solar projects, earning around a 5% return on their investments. They’ve done about $10M worth of financing this way. Now they’re getting into solar loans with backing from a large international re-insurer, adding another $100M in capital.
  • Sungage just raised $100M in funding from a large northeastern US credit union to use as a revolving solar loan fund.
  • SolarCity has started issuing solar bonds with a similar yield directly to the public on a much larger scale. They’ve raised more than $100M so far, without going through the traditional finance industry.
  • Big time sprawling suburban home builder Lennar is now installing rooftop PV systems by default in some markets, including around Denver. They’re offering home buyers a power purchase agreement (PPA) in which they get a 20% discount off of retail electricity rates for 20 years.

From the consumer’s point of view what this means is that in an increasing number of markets, rooftop solar can now be had at a discount to utility power, with no up front costs. This is new and different and scary for utilities, because it means rooftop solar can go big. Fast.  Additionally, Elon Musk (who heads both electric car maker Tesla Motors and SolarCity…) is investing $5 billion (with a B) in a massive lithium ion battery factory in Nevada, hoping to drive costs down through economies of scale.

Suddenly, a good chunk of the traditional utility customer base starts to look a little sketchy.

Frozen Meters

Net Metering Required (For Now)

Many of these disruptive businesses depend on net metering policies and so utilities, including Xcel, have coordinated with the climate-denying corporate octopus that is the American Legislative Exchange Council to try and repeal it. So far net metering has been pretty durable. The policy is easy to understand and seems fair to most of the public, so it’s popular. Net metering also now has its own relatively well funded corporate advocates in the form of Big Solar — the very same companies raising hundreds of millions of dollars, listed above, being represented by The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) — one of the intervenors in 14AL-0660E (which is the PUC’s catchy name for this whole rate case thing we’ve been involved in).

In Colorado (and elsewhere) these dynamics have brought us to a regulatory stalemate. For once the status quo — net metering — favors distributed renewable electricity. It’s the policy that Big Solar has bet the farm on. But if we try and use it to scale up cheap rooftop PV dramatically, it may destabilize the utilities.

Straight net metering also won’t result in a particularly optimal deployment of distributed energy resources, because all it accounts for is energy production, and there are many more subtle qualities that are important to a well functioning electricity grid. If we can integrate those other qualities — temporal, geographic, environmental, price stabilization, etc. — into our electricity pricing we’ll get a much better overall outcome. As the Rocky Mountain Institute has put it: the debate over net metering misses the point.

Be that as it may, right now there are two 800lb gorillas (or maybe, an 800lb gorilla and a 300lb gorilla) locked in mortal combat — the utilities on one side and Big Solar on the other. One side is trying to get rid of net metering altogether, and the other is willing to fight to the death to preserve it. When people bring up other ways of valuing distributed renewable energy like Minnesota’s proposed Value of Solar or Feed in Tariffs they tend to either be ignored or attacked, sometimes by both sides of the fight! For example, The Alliance for Solar Choice wasted no time in setting up a campaign to stop what they glibly re-termed Feed in Taxes and Value of Solar Taxes as soon as Minnesota made it clear they were considering Value of Solar seriously.

Headed for Strange Country

As with so many aspects of climate and energy policy, change here is inevitable. Regardless of which side prevails in the fight over net metering, as the cost of distributed solar and energy storage continue to decline, we are headed for strange territory.

If the utilities prevail and repeal net metering, they’ll probably slow the spread of distributed generation, since customers would only be able to benefit economically from satisfying their electricity demand on-site in real time, rather than banking electricity production annually. But in the longer term, given ongoing PV system cost declines and the potential for cost-effective electricity storage, the utilities will still face a decline in electricity demand regardless of whether a policy like NEM remains in place. At one extreme we could end up in a situation (well described by RMI), where defection from the grid is economically sensible for a significant number of people.

On the other hand if Big Solar prevails then we get to the same place, maybe a little quicker, since they’re already operating with a net metering based business model at significant scale. If the Feds don’t renew the Investment Tax Credit in 2016 that will push the economics out a little, but there’s little reason to think the overall price trend is going to reverse. Ever.

Does that sound ridiculous? Then note that PV in 2014 is already 59% cheaper than NREL predicted it would be back in 2010, and Deutsche Bank is forecasting that solar will reach grid parity nationwide by the end of 2016. On the wholesale side the New York Times reports that without subsidies wind on the high plains has come in as low as ¢3.7/kWh (the same as just the production costs of Xcel’s Colorado fossil fleet in 2013).

Some folks think widespread grid defection sounds like utopian energy independence. In practice it would be far less equitable, more expensive, and operationally much less robust than a well designed network that integrates a lot of distributed energy. It’s also physically impossible in cities, which consume most of our electricity, because no matter how cheap solar and storage become, cities use more energy within their boundaries than is available from renewable sources in those same boundaries.  This is despite the fact that cities have  much lower per capita energy use than rural and suburban places of comparable wealth. Cities are great for the climate, but they will always need to import energy, and that means we will still need transmission and distribution systems.

Um, okay. But, decoupling?

In the near term, revenue decoupling would insulate Xcel against the sales they’re going to lose to rooftop solar and other distributed energy. Rather than seeing revenues decline as more electricity sales are displaced, they’d be empowered to adjust rates in a formulaic way to compensate for the losses, and ensure that the fixed costs of the grid continue to be paid for (along with their profits). In theory, this ought to remove or at least reduce their opposition to net metering.

In the long term, if grid defection becomes attractive, additional fixed-cost recovery mechanisms like revenue decoupling aren’t going to be much help to the utility.

Our task is to open up the discussion about creating an intelligent grid with electricity prices that reflect the more subtle attributes of distributed generation. Revenue decoupling is one potential avenue into that discussion — at least the early part of it.  How so?

In the short term, the utilities are fighting for the status quo, minus net metering, and they seem to be losing.  If the only two positions available are the status quo with vs. without net metering, the choice for renewable energy and climate advocates is clear — we have to side with Big Solar.  But if utilities were actually up for creating a different — and much more scalable — renewable energy policy, then the decision of who to work with becomes more challenging.

With revenue decoupling in place, utilities like Xcel could have more room to consider policies that support distributed generation, without seeing them as an axiomatic threat to their revenues.  But to do so, they’d have to be willing to talk about unwinding their existing investments in fossil generation — otherwise, no renewable or distributed generation policy can scale up far enough to be “good enough” for the climate.  That vital discussion about unwinding fossil plants is not yet happening out in the open.  At least, not in the US.  We’ll take a much closer look at it in a post very soon!

Zane Selvans's picture
Thank Zane for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Roger DePoy's picture
Roger DePoy on Dec 16, 2014

There is little doubt in my mind that solar will continue to decrease in cost, and will become the choice for most consumers, especially when storage becomes more economical. That being said, net-metering is the most insidious “reverse Robin Hood” scheme going. Those who can least afford electricity today are in effect,  subsidizing a largely affluent base (solar users), who are capable of shouldering the  cost of their solar generation, without above market purchase agreements.

 

For those that are off the grid, I commend you.

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Dec 16, 2014

Zane,

1) Will you at least be honest and accept that Net Metering is a regressive fraud shoved on the underclass by the self-same regulators that greenies often accuse of feathering the bed for large corporate grid based power?

2) Why won’t the Solar Crowd advocate that their followers go completely off-grid. Don’t you think it odd that greenie folks like you are drooling in anticipation of the Utility Death Spiral, yet they also want to keep benefiting from the existence of the self-same grid/Utility?

3) I can’t wait for those Ellon Musk batteries to be here, so that we won’t have to sit and bear it, listening to gloating greenies. Provided of course that they hurry up and buy batteries and get off the grid. PS. Hope Ellon’s batteries aren’t the type that spontaneously burst into flames, that could be bad.

Ed Dodge's picture
Ed Dodge on Dec 16, 2014

There is more nuance to the Net Metering story. Once of the chief complaints from the utilities is that solar users are being paid retail rates for the electricity they produce, despite still being attached to the grid and still using grid power when sun is not shining.

There are common sense compromises to be had, first, pay wholesale rates instead of retail rates for net metering. Another is for solar users to pay some fixed fees for their grid connections.

With enough smart meters and real time pricing data then solar users could conceivably be paid in real time pricing for the electricity they produce. With high rates of solar penetration then you get spikes in production as all the solar in a region is producing at the same time, even over producing total grid demand. Logically, in this scenario the value of solar electric goes down as supply goes up.

These are challenging issues because utilities exists within a regulated environment where their ability to innovate is constrained. Some uilities would be happy to get in the solar business themselves but are not allowed to due to regulations.

Solar advocates want to keep receiving elevated retail rates for net-metering even if it means they free-ride the grid. Personally, I don’t see why net metering customers should recieve retail rates for the power they produce, they should receive a rate that is logical and fair within the context of the overall market.

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Dec 17, 2014

Frankly I have problems with the whole notion that individuals/homeowners who purchase solar power are allowed and encouraged to be doing it for commercial reasons at my expense.

If these people want solar power so badly, then they are welcome to own it, however Utilities and the rest of us should never have been placed under any obligation to purchase such power from them, therby subsidizing their pseudo-capitalistic escapades.

It really strikes me as a farce at least (I am resisting the word Fraud), to trumpet the merrit of something that has little or no real value on its own merrit.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 17, 2014

For those that are off the grid…”

Maybe things will change in a few years, but for today, being off-grid is the dirtiest possible way to make electricity.  Start with hundreds of pounds of lead-acid batteries that get changed-out every 5-7 years.  Then add a fossil fuel powered backup generator that can’t hope to be as clean-burning as utility combined cycled generators, even when brand new (do home generators have catalytic converters? I doubt it.)  Then add a wood burning stove which is worst source of lung-damaging particulate pollution.

If the old batteries get recycled, then maybe only 1% of the lead will go into our land-fills and work it’s way into our drinking water.

I suppose the only up-side is that the off-grid movement will get some of the solar-freeloaders off the grid and cause society to think hard about the benefits of a reliable electric grid.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 17, 2014

Zane, when a sector which provides one-half of one percent of the country’s electricity starts lecturing the sector which provides the other 99.5% on how to stay solvent, the only decoupling that’s going on is their perception from reality.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Dec 17, 2014

One commenter called net-metering a farce, stopping short of calling it fraud. I’m fine with calling it fraud, because that’s what it is.

Net-metering is a form of mass stealth subsidization of solar power which has not undergone any kind of democratic review or debate. No political party anywhere in the world has debated the costs and benefits of net-metering or considered the effect on its voter base. No citizen in any democratic country has been informed about the market-distorting and cost-increasing effect of net-metering, let alone has been given the opportunity to agree or disagree with it, even while the still ongoing global financial crisis is forcing unprecedented cuts in public spending practically across the board, as indicators of poverty and strife have been ratcheting almost everywhere.

The entire edifice of lobby-groups, think tanks and (public and private) energy research institutes which have traditionally been promoting and defending net-metering as being a bona-fide, scaleable and effective ‘revenue neutral’ stimulus measure for sustainable energy are perpetrators of this fraud. They have colluded to misinform the public in order to secretly – outside of the democratic process – draw-down public and private resources at an exponentially increasing rate and move energy markets into a doomed land of fantasy and illusion.

This is occuring while citizens across the globe are already preoccupied by the wrenching effects of nearly a decade of financial deleveraging and growing political instability in almost all parts of the world, as well as the horrific current revelations from science that the chance of limiting global warming to 2°C is now effectively zero. Defrauding a preoccupied public in this way is surely the lowest kind of treason. All of these culprits are at the forefront of undermining the battle against greenhouse gas emissions, resource scarcity, financial instability, inequality and environmental degradation. They are everybody’s enemy, with the exception of a tiny elite which is profiting hansomly from this fraud. It would be fitting if there comes a day of reckoning where these culprits are identified and given the opportunity to pay for their crimes.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 18, 2014

If the only two positions available are the status quo with vs. without net metering, the choice for renewable energy and climate advocates is clear…”

Residential solar (“distributed generation”) is the most expensive possible way to produce renewable energy.  As this report by the Lazard firm reports, residential solar is double the cost of CSP with storage (or geothermal energy), triple the cost of utility solar PV, and quadruple the cost of utility wind.

Furthermore, some of the most promising energy storage options are utility scale only: pumped hydro, high temperature liquid metal batteries, flow batteries, and thermal storage coupled to CSP.

The service lifetime of solar energy systems will clearly be longer for utility scale system because the centralized location and ground mounting reduces maintenance costs, and decouples it from leaking roofs which must be periodically replaced.

The popular notion that the solar industry is being driven by distributed generation also conflicts with the facts.  As reported by the SEIA, for the past three years, most US solar power installation has been utility scale (especially in the solar heavy weight states California, Nevada, Arizona, and North Carolina), and this trend is projected to continue. 

So yes, the answer is clear, net-metering and subsidized residential solar are bad for clean energy, bad for the poor, and bad for the economy.

Jeffrey Miller's picture
Jeffrey Miller on Dec 18, 2014

Zane, 

I see from your profile that you were trained in geophysics and have worked at some of the finest universities and labs in the world. The scientific culture that you imbibed in those places is one that values truth above all else. The scientific ethos stands in stark contrast to the culture of advocacy, at least as the latter is typically practiced. The very well informed commentators to your post are uniformly and harshly critical of net metering. They give detailed reasons for their criticism. It seems to me that as a scientist interested in understanding things, and as someone who, to judge by your career choice, is clearly concerned by the direction the world is headed, you have an obligation to engage with your critics, take their arguments seriously, and respond to them. This is important because we’re not going to succeed in eliminating our carbon emissions in the time frame the IPCC says is necessary if we pursue economically wasteful and ineffectual energy policies. Such policies may make us feel better because they allow us to believe that we are doing something, but they are in reality a hindrance to genuinely effective solutions. 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »