MASSACHUSETTS SPENDS more than $28 billion per year on energy and electricity, with much of that money leaving the state to pay for fossil fuels from other parts of the world. Even with this mild winter, ratepayers struggle with seasonal changes that yield fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices.  Meanwhile, our state’s businesses cite high energy costs as one of the biggest obstacles to growth and a reason many companies choose to leave the state – or to not locate here to begin with.

What’s the answer to these drags on our economy?  At least part of the solution lies with solar energy, which is one proven way to drive down utility costs while also helping our environment.  But the local solar energy industry outlook is uncertain because the Legislature continues to wrangle over a key incentive program – the so-called “net metering” bill.

Net metering provides ratepayers with an important enticement to shift to solar:  once they’ve changed over, the policy allows them to sell the excess energy they produce back into the region’s electric grid, which in turn helps them to pay down the cost of installation.  Unfortunately, here in Massachusetts, regulations cap the amount of energy that can be sold back to the grid and in many parts of the state, We’ve bumped up against those limits. For instance, in several communities covered by National Grid and Unitil, two of the state’s largest utilities, caps have already been hit, meaning new solar customers are blocked from selling electricity back into the grid, therefore reducing their incentive to invest.  Eversource, another key utility, estimates that its territory, too, will soon hit the cap, leaving many homes, businesses, and municipalities stranded with aging, non-renewable energy sources.

Common sense would dictate that we simply lift and perhaps eliminate caps altogether.  Net metering has proved to be one of the most effective state policies for fostering renewable energy generation. It allows business owners to reduce their overall energy costs for themselves and their customers. This gives those who call the Commonwealth home – whether you are a homeowner, business, municipality, or a nonprofit institution – the opportunity to reduce and manage energy costs. The bottom line: net metering produces a more predictable economic environment for customers, which makes them more inclined to invest in this clean technology.

Historically, when the net metering caps have been reached, they have been raised by the Legislature to prevent the solar sector from losing momentum.  In fact, the recent unwillingness to raise the cap has already stunted that momentum, producing uncertainty in the market and delays in millions of dollars of investment right here in Massachusetts.  Today the solar industry employs more than 15,000 Bay State residents and, if we fail to address the net metering legislation immediately, we will surely shrink that job base, as consumers balk and solar providers lose business opportunities, leading in turn to layoffs.

At the tail end of last year, just before recessing for the holidays, Congress took an important step toward a cleaner energy future when it voted to extend the 30 percent Federal Income Tax Credit on the purchase of solar renewable energy systems. The preservation of the federal tax credit sent a powerful signal to the solar industry and its potential customers that the country still believes in the promise of solar energy and is willing to provide stable, predictable incentives to those interested in investing in renewable energy.

Now it’s the Commonwealth’s turn.  If we fail to expand the net-metering cap, solar projects across the state will be jeopardized, jobs will be lost, and consumers will have fewer energy options.  By embracing and expanding the state’s net metering policy sooner rather than later, we can provide critical stable and predictable economic models for the industry and for consumers.  And in doing so, we can reduce our carbon footprint and once again make it clear to the nation that the clean energy future starts here, in Massachusetts.

Ken Driscoll is founder and chief executive officer of Solect Energy, the leading full-service, commercial-scale solar company in Hopkinton.

2 replies on “Raise the net metering cap”

  1. There are both technical and economic reasons for the Net Metering Cap. ISO-NE refers to wind and solar as Variable Energy Resources (VER’s). VER’s cannot be scheduled for generation like conventional power sources. VER’s need to be accommodated whenever and however wind and sunshine permit. The variability of VER’s adds to the variability to demand which changes every time we flip a switch. When the sun comes out, a fossil fuel plant must be turned down to maintain stability. It cannot be turned off in case a cloud shows up. It continues to burn fuel and waste money no matter what happens to the sunshine.
    There is a reason for the cap. The grid can only handle a small amount of VERs before it goes unstable. Increasing the cap or removing it completely will result in instability, brownouts and blackouts. It will not avoid foreign oil imports. It will accelerate imports of natural gas from Pennsylvania and hydro from Canada.
    Economically, wind and solar VER’s have no capacity value. They do not lower cost. In fact, they add to the cost of electricity because they increase capacity beyond what we really need. Rich folks, fortunate enough to have south facing roofs, can buy solar panels to avoid paying for electricity. The money they save comes from shifting the cost in the form of increasing rates to the rest of us. The jobs created by wind and solar are parasitic and unnecessary. Adding unnecessary jobs on top of the jobs that already exist to supply us with electricity drives up the cost of energy and chases industry and jobs to other states.
    Tell Beacon Hill not to listen to promoters of wind and solar. Tell them to stop forcing ISO-NE to do the impossible. And , tell them to leave ISO-NE alone to do what they do best. Tell them to ask ISO-NE to provide reliable electric service at the lowest possible cost, period.
    Wind and solar VER’s are not yet the answer to a fossil fuel free future.

  2. NortheasternEE raises the very important point about the inefficiencies of the ISO-NE power grid. Currently the grid’s total capacity is more than double the amount of electricity generation averaged throughout the year. That means huge energy and economic inefficiencies of power generators being paid to sit idle waiting to generate just a few times a year during peak demand episodes. If ISO-NE does not have a clear separate accounting mechanism to systematically report for these energy inefficiencies they should: total energy consumed and pollution produced in order to provide total actual power generation (can anyone confirm if their grid capacity and generation fuel sources, total generation, and emissions factors data does this already?). However the time of isolated inefficiencies mentioned in the comment above are absolutely inevitable and expected for any substantial energy system conversion effort. It’s well known that the much needed rapid scaling up renewable energy technologies requires both the utilities and ISO-NE to evolve their business, management, and planning models and strategies to bring the region into the 21st century through smart grid, efficiency and conversation, demand response, and renewables. Continuing to invest in a 20th century energy system only locks us in deeper to a system based on fossil fuels (primarily natural gas ) and, many would argue, nuclear (whose going to allow/permit a 1,000 MW generator in New England or how long would that take?) that will continue to (and increasingly so) create enormous inefficiencies as the utilities will do everything in their power to protect their own share-holder interests and corporate bottom line by capturing their return on investments.
    Its reckless and irresponsible in our time of anthropogenic climate change, with its epic moral imperative to transform our energy systems, to be stalling here and protecting the interests of the fossil fuel supporting/based companies and their shareholders who are fully committed to the largest socialization of cost and risk in human history.

Comments are closed.