The SC Public Service Commission recently ended a weeklong hearing on Dominion Energy’s anti-solar proposal that would dramatically increase tariffs and reduce energy credits for rooftop solar customers. Solar companies and conservation organizations have argued that the plan would penalize existing solar customers and deter others from obtaining solar energy – so much so that it would be an “industry wipe out” for rooftop solar energy.
As the original sponsor of the 2019 Energy Freedom Act, I invested years of time and energy working with stakeholders to pass legislation to inject competition into the energy market in South Carolina – allowing retail customers to choose solar energy and allowing that large solar farms compete for electricity generation opportunities. This competition-based model has put South Carolina on the path to being a leader in energy decision making, clean energy growth and pragmatic efforts to encourage investments in renewable energy through competition.
The whole reason why we have included requirements in the Energy Freedom Act for regulators and utilities to consider the benefits of deploying solar energy on roofs is because we understand that utility monopolies have a for-profit interest in maintaining control of the market. Our intention was for our state to provide reasonable opportunities for customers to reduce their bills and manage electricity consumption through their investment decisions. Dominion’s proposal is anything but reasonable.
I was not surprised to learn of Dominion’s punitive solar proposal and its problematic interpretation of the Energy Freedom Act. But I was concerned to learn of the position of the State Regulators’ Office, which is responsible for representing the public interest in the regulation of public services.
Despite its mission to look after the interests of all customers, and despite the legislative directive to consider the benefits of solar energy, the Office of Regulatory Officials agreed with Dominion that it does not need to take solar customers, their concerns and penalties into account that affect them, focusing on a supposed “cost change” supported by non-solar customers.
Dominion Energy’s proposal would dramatically increase fees for 11,000 residential rooftop solar customers and eliminate solar energy as an affordable option for hundreds of thousands of other Dominion customers. Considering the impacts for these customers and the industry was exactly what we had in mind when drafting the Energy Freedom Act.
The law outlined three basic principles for the future of rooftop solar energy:
1. “Continue to allow market-oriented private investment in distributed energy resources.”
2. “Avoid disrupting the growing market for energy resources distributed on a customer scale.”
3. “Eliminate any change in cost or subsidy associated with net measurement as far as possible.”
Instead of looking at these principles together, Dominion and the Office of Regulatory Staff focused on just six words – “eliminate any change in cost or subsidy” – and ignored the part of the law that says “as far as possible”, while also ignoring the viability of the solar industry and the disruptions that Dominion’s proposal would cause.
It was not the intention of the Legislature that the six words of the cost change clause would replace other sections and be used as a justification for eliminating solar energy on the roof as a viable option for customers.
The legislature has spent years analyzing how energy decisions are made in South Carolina, making improvements to benefit taxpayers. Changes to the Public Service Commission have been made, and clear guidance has been given to the Office of Regulatory Officials and other agencies that clean energy and competition should have a place in our energy future.
This case further demonstrates the imperative that our Legislature must be constantly vigilant and suggests that its energy policy work may not be complete.
While lawmakers come to terms with this, Dominion customers who share my concerns can apply to speak at a virtual public hearing at the Public Service Commission on Tuesday. This is the most effective way to ensure that the public is heard.
Charleston attorney Peter McCoy he is a former South Carolina attorney and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.