Rocky Mountain Power rethinks its rooftop solar rate hike request

At the request of Rocky Mountain Power’s owner, Pacifi Corp, the utility’s proposal to place its residential rooftop solarpower- generating customers on a new fee schedule has been suspended by the Utah Public Service Commission (PSC). The new fee proposal would have changed utility rates for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) customers with home solar panels to make up for the revenue the power company said it was losing when those customers go back on the power grid when the home installation fails to provide adequate electricity.

The ruling came on Dec. 9, the day that RMP had set as a deadline for solar rooftop customers to submit applications to be grandfathered in under their previous lower rates.

According to an order on the Public Service Commission website, Pacifi Corp fi led a letter with the commission on Dec. 9 in which it “recommends the commission exercise its statutory prerogative to suspend the [tariff changes] ... while interested stakeholders continue to seek mutually acceptable resolutions.” The order goes on to say, “Because this recommendation is not inconsistent with the comments and replies we have received from others in this docket, we accept Pacifi Corp’s recommendation and suspend the tariff changes.”

Pacifi Corp went on in the letter to tell the commission that it “will notify the commission if a stipulation is reached or if the attempt to resolve this matter becomes unfruitful.” The Public Service Commission says it will await that notifi cation before holding further proceedings.

A recent survey commissioned by the Utah Solar Energy Association (USEA) and conducted by Dan Jones & Associates showed that most Utahns agreed with USEA that the new rate structure RMP proposed for customers with rooftop solar generating capabilities discriminates against those customers.

RMP was asking the commission for a three-part rate for residential net-metered customers, those that generate power but stay connected to the utility. The residential rate was separated into charges of $15 for a fixed customer charge, $9.02 per kilowatt for peak period demand and 3.81 cents per kilowatt- hour for the amount of energy used.

According to Mountain Town Community Solar (MTCS), a nonprofit solar enegy advocacy organization, “This proposal was confusing to the public and created needless disruptions in the solar market. It is of the utmost importance that the commission create a pathway for a fair and thorough examination of the costs and benefits of net metering, and today’s decision is a step in that direction. Although we are pleased the commission has suspended the proposal, it is still unclear what this will mean for customers who enroll in net metering after December 9.”

Paul Murphy, spokesman for Rocky Mountain Power, said, “We’re continuing to try to seek a rate that’s fair to Utah solar customers without harming our other customers who don’t have solar panels. This is a complicated and important issue to be resolved and we’re relying on the PSC to make the best decision possible after they have all the facts or information they need.”

According to Murphy, rooftop solar applications have doubled every year for the past five years in Utah. Last year there were nearly 7,000 rooftop applications. This year Rocky Mountain Power had projected 17,000. In November alone, there were 2200 applications. Murphy said that as of 5 p.m. on Dec. 9, there had been 2,300 applications in the first nine days of December alone.

RMP is now returning to the drawing board for its net metering proposal in a move clean energy advocates such as USEA and MTCS have applauded. Advocates earlier protested the proposal with additional fees and demand charges, both moves that have proved unpopular when utilities have tried them in other states. RMP, however, had defended its proposal, contending that the average Utah solar customers underpay their actual cost-of service by $400 each annually.

Directed by the PSC last year, RMP performed a costbenefit analysis of solar and claimed a cost-shift of $6.5 million annually, projecting it to grow to $78 million each year if not addressed. It’s a familiar argument among utilities who say rooftop solar users fail to pay their fair share of grid upkeep. Conversely, rooftop solar advocates say regulators and utilities don’t quantify all the benefits distributed solar provides to the grid.

In its letter to the PSC, PacifiCorp said, “As indicated in the company’s reply comments, most objections are based on an incorrect understanding of the applicability and implementation of Schedule 135A (the net metering proposal). Nevertheless, the company continues to be willing to work with interested stakeholders to address issues that have been raised about the net metering program.”

Once all parties come to an agreement, RMP said it would notify the commission to resume the process to approve its application.

It’s not the first time a Berkshire Hathaway Energy (BHE) subsidiary such as PacifiCorp has been embroiled in such a debate. Nevada’s controversial net metering decision involved NV Energy, another BHE subsidiary. Under that proposal, regulators slashed retail remuneration, increased fixed charges and excluded a grandfathering charge for existing customers. Later, the utility and solar advocates compromised on the grandfathering provision. Two leading solar installers left Nevada after the decision and other state regulators have since taken a more cautious approach to net metering debates.