SC’s energy regulator bounces back from solar subsidy debate

A member of the influential South Carolina Public Service Commission (SCPSC) refused to vote on a controversial solar subsidy issue after making comments that industry officials claimed to show an unfair bias against them.

Tom Ervin – a native of Greenville, SC, who ran unsuccessfully for governor of South Carolina in 2014 – dismissed Virginia executives Domain Energy earlier this week, accusing them of monopolistic behavior in a passionate speech before their colleagues.

“You are not being fair to customers, the state, the solar industry (and the) well-paid jobs that will be lost if that tariff is enacted,” said Ervin this week. “You are afraid of what is going to happen – you have some competition – (and) it is better to just cut off your head now, put them out of business and remain a monopoly.”

There!

Dominion countered that its efforts to operate within the state’s current solar subsidy framework were aimed at ensuring that “one group of customers does not pay higher prices unfairly to benefit another group of customers.”

The company told regulators that it currently has 11,000 South Carolina customers who have benefited from state and federal tax credits, in addition to so-called “net metering” incentives – which allow solar producers to sell their surplus energy back to utilities at artificially high rates.

State and federal credits pay for more than half of solar installations (up to $ 30,000) – while “net metering” incentives are continuous payments from utilities to solar energy customers for the surplus energy supplied to their networks.

All of these subsidies are necessary, the suppliers argue, because they support the initial investment in solar infrastructure – as well as thousands of jobs created by solar construction.

Sponsors of solar energy want to keep these subsidies in operation perpetually in the hope of making the transition from more users to renewable energy sources – while utilities argue that such an open policy is unfair to them and the vast majority of their consumers.

Dominion told regulators this week that the company has an estimate 740,000 customers who must absorb the costs of these solar subsidies.

“We agree with solar energy developers about the importance of solar growth in South Carolina, but we can’t forget so many who are struggling financially,” said a company executive. “We listened to them during our recent regulatory review of fees and paused this process. These are the same people we are trying to protect from being forced to pay the bill through unfair subsidies. We recognize that certain stakeholders would prefer solar subsidies to continue in full, but the law does not allow this. “

This news outlet is currently showing ads for supporters of solar energy subsidies. These supporters say Dominion wants to place “a high flat rate on rooftop solar customers” in the hope of shutting down the industry – similar to the argument put forward by Ervin.

“If implemented, Dominion’s solar metering rate would substantially impact the customer’s economy,” said the group Conservatives for a clean energy future note on your website. “Overall, the (Dominion) plan could cause a 50 percent or more reduction in the client’s economy and put solar energy jobs in South Carolina at risk.”

This is certainly a concern … however, our founding editor Will Folks also published an editorial on the costs associated with the perpetual extension of these subsidies.

“Wealthier homeowners receive credits, as well as free access to a utility’s electricity grid,” Folks wrote in 2019 during the debate on solar credits. “This increases costs for the poorest residents who do not have a home or have enough money to invest in solar energy. In other words, solar credits are regressive.“

In addition, the value of one kilowatt hour generated by the sun (kWh) differs dramatically based on climate, time of day and time of year. Customers tend to consume more energy early in the morning and late in the evening – times when the sun is not shining. And, of course, peak usage is exacerbated on cloudy winter days.

The challenge? How to balance these competing interests – that is, determine which level and duration of subsidy is fairest for all consumers (those who have invested in solar energy and those who have not).

Of course, the immediate question before regulators was whether Ervin had crossed the line.

Ervin’s soliloquy led Dominion to propose that he refuse to judge the case on the grounds that his statements violated the SCPSC’s canons of impartiality and demonstrated a clear bias in the matter at hand.

Ervin initially rejected that statement, telling Dominion that he was realizing his objections, but that he had no intention of refusing. His tone changed, however, after SCPSC officials entered an executive session to discuss the matter in more detail.

Upon leaving that meeting behind closed doors, Ervin agreed to refuse …

(SPONSORED CONTENT)

-FITSNews

*****

WANT TO TURN OFF THE SOUND?

Is there anything you would like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open mic policy! Send your own letter to the editor (or guest column) by email HERE. Do you have a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Have a technical question or failure to report? CLICK HERE.

Flag: Getty