Energy

National Grid Proposes Fee on Wind and Solar Energy

PROVIDENCE — National Grid wants to impose new fees on wind and solar systems, and renewable energy developers and advocates are, of course, not happy.

Rhode Island’s primary electric utility says the fees are necessary to offset the costs of running and improving the electric grid, especially as power generation shifts away from big power plants to solar arrays and wind turbines. As this transition to distributed electricity generation occurs, National Grid is losing revenue as some fees they collect are shrinking.

The cause, according to the power utility, is renewable energy systems, which earn credits for generating electricity. These credits eliminate most charges on monthly bills.

National Grid maintains that wind and solar energy still need the grid to take the electricity they generate by wind and therefore should pay for its upkeep.

“It’s just a fairness issue,” said Tim Roughan, director of energy and environmental policy for National Grid.

The fees, Roughan said, don’t raise new revenue but only make sure that everyone is contributing “to fairly allocate the cost.”

National Gird is offering two main fees. The first is an increase in the customer charge on all electric bills. For residential customers, the fee would increase from $5 a month to a tiered charged based on electricity use that ranges from $5.25 to $18 a month. For commercial use, the new fee range would run from $10.50 to $26 a month.

Customers with renewable-energy systems — photovoltaic solar panels are the majority — would also be required to pay the transmission charge on their electric bills, which on average would cost between $10 and $20 monthly.

The other fee would apply to larger, stand-alone wind turbines and solar arrays. A new fee would be accessed according to the amount of electricity the project has the capacity to generate. The fee would $5 or $7.25 based on the voltage. For example, the fee on a 1-megawatt solar array would cost about $2,500 a month. The fee would apply to all existing and future renewable projects regardless of what power-purchase program it uses.

Roughan estimated that the fee is a fair trade-off for the above-market price being paid to renewable-energy projects for their electricity. He noted that the same 1-megawatt project would still net about $23,000 in revenue monthly.

Opponents of the idea say National Grid is looking for revenue to fund the operation of its current static distribution system that should actually shrink and become less expensive to manage with the anticipated growth of energy efficiency and renewable power.

The proposed rate revisions would hamper the state’s fast-growing efficiency, wind and solar sectors, said Seth Handy, an attorney for the state’s biggest developer of land-based wind power, Wind Energy Development LLC (WED).

“The proposed fee for public entity net-metering facilities and facilities enrolled in Rhode Island’s distributed generation and renewable energy growth programs is devastating to developers, and especially those that have built, planned and financed projects without expecting any such fee,” Handy said. “Such a fee is pretty clearly contrary to the purpose of the ‘Renewable Energy Growth’ statute under which it has been proposed.”

In a motion recently filed with state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — the agency that will determine the fate of National Grid’s proposed fees — WED requested that the access fee be dismissed, calling it “an unjust, unreasonable and illegal charge.”

The access fee is also being contested jointly by the Conservation Law Foundation, Acadia Center, the New England Clean Energy Council and the Alliance for Solar Choice. They argue in a letter for dismissal that the fee goes against the principle of the state’s distributed generation laws, in that they reduce the distribution costs along with other cost-saving benefits to the environment.

The letter concludes, “The proposed access fee would severely jeopardize the economics of all of those projects and thus the purpose of the statute.”

Opponents also say the benefits of renewable energy systems outweigh the costs of using the distribution system. Wind and solar power reduce air pollution, offer a hedge against fossil fuel price increases and add power during high demand.

During a Sept. 17 presentation to the PUC, National Grid referred to the fees as minor and baby steps.

“In fact this is not a baby step, this is a really big deal,” said Marion Gold, head of the state Office of Energy Resources, at a recent meeting of one of the state’s renewable energy boards. “This is a big deal for what is being developed for, currently, what is a very small amount of renewable energy that is going into the system relative to the overall energy.”

Gold said her office plans to offer a counter proposal. However, she recognized that utilities everywhere have to reconcile costs as they create a modern electric grid. Other states, she said, have considered such fees but have backed away from them “because of the complexity in getting end users to understand what’s going on.”

Arizona, in fact, withdraw a request for a similar access fee late last month. Hawaii, however, is one of the first states to levy fees on solar-panel users. In June, the state’s utility requested raising the fees from about $18 to $25 per month, while cutting the rate the utility pays for the solar. New York and Massachusetts are considering similar fees.

Ken Payne, chairman of the Distributed Generation Board, said some compromise is likely. “One way or another, the underlying issues have got to be addressed so that there is a constructive outcome,” he said. “Because you could easily envision conditions getting worse and worse.”

The PUC is expected to rule on National Grid’s fee request by March 1.

Categories

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. If adopted, all this will do is encourage people to abandon the grid altogether, leaving those who cannot afford or cannot build residential solar, residential energy storage, and other self-sufficiency to fend for themselves.

    A company, utility or not, cannot force you to buy their product.

  2. The transmission charge is huge it amounts to 2.6 cents per kw for me that would be a charge of 130.00 per month in the summer. I dont think this is fair to the people who have installed PV. Who do I protest to…

  3. This would hamper future solar installations. I have installed solar with no expectation of such a fee and it leaves me wondering if I made the right move. What is to stop this fee from growing? We entered in with no expectation of a stated benefit being rescinded.

  4. Seems to me the people who use the grid, solar customers or not, should help pay for it. If solar users do not, either the grid degrades (and we have enough of that with bridges, railroads, water pipes…) or others pay, including many too poor, often in multifamily units, to afford solar for now.

    It shouldn’t be hard to figure, just multiply the number of kwh a user receives or sends to the grid, and multiply by the approved rate, currently $.02348 or about 2.3 cents/kwh.

    It seems there is a long list of people wanting things for "free" including owners of Pawsox baseball teams, churches and tax-exempts using city services such as police, fire, those using expensive new bridges, many riding Ripta, those wanting to park in state lots and garages…. No wonder those actually paying are feeling pressed.

  5. To formally protest, send a letter to:

    Luly Massaro, Clerk

    Public Utilities Commission

    89 Jefferson Jefferson Boulevard

    Warwick, RI 02888

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.

cookie

We use cookies to improve your experience and deliver personalized content. View Cookie Settings