How Solar Got Cheap

Going solar has gotten cheap...! Panels and installation costs have plummeted. Even non-environmentalists are making the switch, simply for the economic benefit. Listen to this podcast from NPR's Planet Money for details....!

Idaho Power's War on Solar, pt 2 (Scary Pie Charts)

Idaho Power's recent full page attack ad in the Idaho Statesman deserves more attention than it's getting. Their comical letter at the top of the ad utilizing cheap scare tactics was troubling enough, but now let's review the graph at the bottom meant to inflame and scare ratepayers further...

Here's the graph.

Idaho Power's Scary Pie Charts from their Solar Attack Ad appearing in the Idaho Statesman Feb 1, 2015

Hmm.  What's the problem?  We have graphs, figures and even fine print. Seems reasonable right?  But what's that HUGE yellow scary 2016 solar pie to the right? Why, it represents the overpriced PURPA power that Idaho Power is fighting against (for you!). OMG, it's nearly as big as the entire existing renewable portfolio, including hydropower dams, wind, geothermal and other renewables!  We all know hydropower is massive in Idaho, and now out of nowhere, solar is suddenly going to be bigger than hydro?  If you concluded (understandably) that solar is simply getting out of control, then Idaho Power is getting exactly what they want.

It sure is scary, but is it accurate? NO.

Idaho Power's graphic WILDLY overstates the actual size of the 2016 incremental solar "pie". In fact, Idaho Power overstates the "solar pie" by at least 3X.

I know, boring numbers... but accuracy matters, and these images were designed a certain way for a reason. The yellow pie has an area that is 68.5% the size of the blue renewable pie, which represents 2039 MW of nameplate capacity. If the pie were accurate, it would have to be 1386 MW of 2016 solar, not 461 MW. If we want to go further into the numbers, obviously solar nameplate capacity is not equal to, for example, a coal plant's nameplate capacity because solar only works during the daytime. So the yellow graph should be cut by 2/3 (because "math" tells us it's 3x too big) and then probably again by at least 3/4 (because solar only works during the daylight hours). But then it would only be a tiny yellow speck, and not very scary.

I encourage Idaho Power to come clean on this ad (or to provide a detailed analysis outlining why the yellow pie is 68.5% of the blue pie). A public apology printed as a full page Idaho Statesman ad (just like the original... on Sunday, in color, and as big as the original deception) would be a start.  The apology should include a full-sized copy of the original graphic beside a corrected full-sized graphic, so that the public can fully appreciate the magnitude of the deception.

But I won't hold my breath.

Idaho Power's War on Solar, pt 1

My previous post discussed the Washington Post story which revealed a utility industry strategy to attack solar. A key part of that strategy is to pit ratepayer against ratepayer... the industry strategy proposes demonizing solar by claiming that it causes rates for others to rise. From the Post story...

"Industry officials say they support their customers’ right to generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar’s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs — from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews — remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities. “It’s not about profits; it’s about protecting customers,” said Owens, said. “There are unreasonable cost shifts that do occur [with solar]. There is a grid that everyone relies on, and you have to pay for that grid and pay for that infrastructure.”

Idaho Power's own testimony in their previous IPUC filing parrots this viewpoint, but they are also going aggressively anti-solar in recent local media buys.  An example is their comically inaccurate February 1, 2015 advertisement in the Idaho Statesman.  Click image below to view.

Idaho Power Solar Attack Ad, appearing in the Idaho Statesman Feb 1, 2015
(Click to enlarge)

Although this ad attacks utility-scale solar (not residential), Idaho Power couldn't resist taking anti-solar cheap shots, over and over and over.

"...Federal law mandates that we buy all of the electricity these new solar and other renewable projects produce, even when it's not needed.  The cost of this unneeded power is passed on to you... We are required to sign 20 year contracts with solar developers, guaranteeing prices over that period.  That puts you on the hook for billions of dollars in energy costs... We are required to buy this energy on your behalf, but we want to make sure you don't have to pay more than it's worth..."

Get it?  Idaho Power is fighting for you!

What Idaho Power fails to explain is how they've determined that electrons from solar are "unneeded", while their excess coal/hydro/gas generated electrons are never "unneeded". We know that even with a large expansion, production from these new solar resources will never exceed total demand.

Idaho Power's cheap shots are unfair and untrue, but also transparently reveal their agenda..."the cost of this unneeded power is passed on to you...".  They aspire to turn the population against solar by blaming solar for rate increases. Never mind that study after study has proven the benefits solar delivers to both solar customers and standard customers by delivering much needed power during peak demand periods, reducing the need to purchase power on the spot market or build expensive new carbon-based power plants.

More to come on this ad later... Teaser: When the facts don't fit Idaho Power's story, Idaho Power just makes a pie chart!

Utilities wage campaign against rooftop solar

This story, "Utilities wage campaign against rooftop solar", from the Washington Post is fascinating on so many levels.   The story has relevance to us in Idaho because the utility industry behavior/strategy the story describes is identical to what we're seeing from Idaho Power.  The story reveals:

• A coordinated utility industry effort to attack the economics of small residential distributed energy resources (DER) like solar, wind, etc.  Efforts span legislative and public utility commissions. In Idaho, we've witnessed efforts by Idaho Power to push for changes to net metering rules to raise prices for solar customers.

"Three years ago, the nation’s top utility executives gathered at a Colorado resort to hear warnings about a grave new threat to operators of America’s electric grid: not superstorms or cyberattacks, but rooftop solar panels.

If demand for residential solar continued to soar, traditional utilities could soon face serious problems, from “declining retail sales” and a “loss of customers” to “potential obsolescence,” according to a presentation prepared for the group. “Industry must prepare an action plan to address the challenges,” it said. 

The warning, delivered to a private meeting of the utility industry’s main trade association, became a call to arms for electricity providers in nearly every corner of the nation. Three years later, the industry and its fossil-fuel supporters are waging a determined campaign to stop a home-solar insurgency that is rattling the boardrooms of the country’s government-regulated electric monopolies. 

The campaign’s first phase—an industry push for state laws raising prices for solar customers—failed spectacularly in legislatures around the country, due in part to surprisingly strong support for solar energy from conservatives and evangelicals in traditionally “red states.” But more recently, the battle has shifted to public utility commissions, where industry backers have mounted a more successful push for fee hikes that could put solar panels out of reach for many potential customers..."

• Utility industry strategy to pit ratepayers against ratepayers, by suggesting that low income ratepayers bear increasing fixed costs if other ratepayers install solar. Again, Idaho Power has followed this pattern. In their publicly filed testimony, Idaho Power's paid analyst obediently parrots this viewpoint:

"...This (net metering program) creates a potential inequity between net metering customers and standard service customers, as net metering customers are provided the opportunity to unduly reduce collection of revenue requirement by receiving credit for generation at the full retail rate while standard service customers are left to compensate for the revenue shortfall..."

• Assumed support from conservative political allies failing to meet utility expectations. Fortunately, Idaho Power's efforts to penalize solar customers was not only rejected, but actually resulted in a strong rebuke.  Much to Idaho Power's dismay, their request to financially penalize solar customers (raising base charges by 4x) was rejected.  The existing cap on net metering capacity was completely lifted.  Their request to seize annual excess power production at no cost was denied.  Idaho Power's only "win" was to no longer have to pay solar customers directly for excess power (this wasn't requested by Idaho Power, but was a concession by the IPUC).  Similarly, the Washington Post story tells of similar utility defeats in conservative states:

"...Most of the (utility supported) bills that have been considered so far have been either rejected or vetoed, with the most-striking defeats coming in Republican strongholds, such as Indiana and Utah. There, anti-solar legislation came under a surprisingly fierce attack from free-market conservatives and even evangelical groups, many of which have installed solar panels on their churches.
“Conservatives support solar — they support it even more than progressives do,” said Bryan Miller, co-chairman of the Alliance for Solar Choice and a vice president of public policy for Sunrun, a California solar provider. “It’s about competition in its most basic form. The idea that you should be forced to buy power from a state-sponsored monopoly and not have an option is about the least conservative thing you can imagine...”