Value of utility scale vs. rooftop solar debated amid price decline

Published on February 14, 2017 by Kevin Randolph


Warning: Undefined variable $post_id in /var/www/dailyenergyinsider.com/wp-content/themes/dei/single.php on line 31

Over the last decade, the price of solar installations has declined significantly, but the electric utilities industry continues to debate the value and cost effectiveness of utility scale versus rooftop solar.

During a panel discussion at the 2017 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter committee meeting on Monday, two experts highlighted the different benefits and challenges associated with utility and rooftop solar. The need to accurately determine solar prices, the role of subsidies, net metering regulations and the effects of technological advances all factor in to determining the value of solar.

“I’m pro utility scale over rooftop,” said Brian Potts, an attorney and litigator focusing on environment and natural resources and energy law, as well as a partner at Perkins Coie. “I don’t mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to put on rooftop solar. It’s a question of what is good for society and should we be subsidizing something that is essentially the same technology that costs two to three times as much.”

John Farrell, director of Democratic Energy at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, identified several benefits specific to distributed solar. Those advantages include peak shaving, resiliency, as well as voltage and frequency support. Solar also creates reduced variability by distributing power where it is developed, Farrell said. Solar has load reduction benefits and also is able to put energy back onto the system.

Potts countered that view, arguing that utility scale solar is cheaper and offers many of the same benefits, while also having fewer operational issues.

“Rooftop solar and distributed generation (DG) has a lot of societal benefit, but there’s not a lot of societal benefit that isn’t also provided by utility scale solar,” Potts said.

DG and utility scale solar are difficult to accurately compare. “Because it doesn’t compete on the same level … that our large-scale solar does, we’ve had to come up with new ways to value it and figure out how to calculate it,” Farrell said. “That levelized cost of energy comparison we’ve been using is insufficient in order to determine what is the appropriate price of the resource.”

Both Farrell and Potts agreed that net metering is not necessarily the best way to determine the worth of solar energy. Farrell cited Minnesota’s value of solar policy, adopted in 2014, as a good start for determining the price of solar. The idea behind the value of solar is that utilities should pay a transparent and market-based price for solar energy.

The role of net metering, subsidies and regulations were also debated during the panel. Rules vary by state, which makes determining value even more difficult and influences how economical various kinds of solar projects are.

Potts said that tax benefits and net metering tend to benefit smaller projects.

“I like all solar, but I don’t necessarily think we should be subsidizing all solar,” Potts said.
Farrell, however, argued that net metering is not a subsidy.

“It’s simply the price that we pay for electricity to be delivered to a certain point,” he said.
Farrell also emphasized that the industry needs to figure out how to price solar in order to best invest public resources. He also stressed tension surrounding solar energy business models, which are still evolving along with the industry and, according to Farrell, have not been addressed sufficiently.

Overall, the panelists agreed that both rooftop solar and utility scale solar have benefits but differed on the role regulations, subsidies and net metering should play, as well as the level to which each is valuable to society.

“The challenge is that given that we have limited resources, we may have to choose sometimes,” Farrell said. “I think we’re at a point in the design of our electricity system in terms of the transition from fossil fuels to renewables where we may not have to make that decision as much as we may in the future.”