VA hospitals, REC Solar sign contract

EU Electricity Market Reform CFDs seek stable prices via contracts for difference, balancing renewables and nuclear, shielding consumers, and boosting competitiveness as France and Germany clash over scope, grid expansion, and hydrogen production.

Key Points

EU framework using contracts for difference to stabilize power prices, support renewables and nuclear, and protect users.

✅ Guarantees strike prices for new low-carbon generation

✅ Balances consumer protection with industrial competitiveness

✅ Disputed scope: nuclear inclusion, grids, hydrogen eligibility

Despite record temperatures this October, Europe is slowly shifting towards winter - its second since the Ukraine war started and prompted Russia to cut gas supplies to the continent amid an energy crisis that has reshaped policy.

After prices surged last winter, when gas and electricity bills “nearly doubled in all EU capitals”, the EU decided to take emergency measures to limit prices.

In March, the European Commission proposed a reform to revamp the electricity market “to boost renewables, better protect consumers and enhance industrial competitiveness”.

However, France and Germany are struggling to find a compromise as rolling back prices is tougher than it appears and the clock is ticking as European energy ministers prepare to meet on 17 October in Luxembourg.

The controversy around CFDs
At the heart of the issue are contracts for difference (CFDs).

By providing a guaranteed price for electricity, CFDs aim to support investment in renewable energy projects.

France - having 56 nuclear reactors - is lobbying for nuclear energy to be included in the CFDs, but this has caught the withering eye of Germany.

Berlin suspects Paris of wanting an exception that would give its industry a competitive advantage and plead that it should only apply to new investments.

France wants ‘to regain control of the price’
The disagreement is at the heart of the bilateral talks in Hamburg, which started on Monday, between the French and German governments.

French President Emmanuel Macron promised “to regain control of the price of electricity, at the French and European level” and outlined a new pricing scheme in a speech at the end of September.

As gas electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity, France might be tempted to switch to a national system rather than a European one after a deal with EDF on prices to be more competitive economically.

However, France is "confident" that it will reach an agreement with Germany on electricity market reforms, Macron said on Friday.

Siding with France are other pro-nuclear countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, while Germany can count on the support of Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy amid opposition from nine EU countries to treating market reforms as a price fix.

But even if a last-minute agreement is reached, the two countries’ struggles over energy are creeping into all current European negotiations on the subject.

Germany wants a massive extension of electricity grids on the continent so that it can import energy; France is banking on energy sovereignty and national production.

France wants to be able to use nuclear energy to produce clean hydrogen, while Germany is reluctant, and so on.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nordic Power Grid Dispute highlights cross-border interconnector congestion, curtailed exports and imports, hydropower priorities, winter demand spikes, rising spot prices, and transmission grid security amid decarbonization efforts across Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Key Points

A clash over interconnectors and capacity cuts reshaping trade, prices, and reliability in the Nordic power market.

✅ Sweden cuts interconnector capacity to protect grid stability

✅ Norway prioritizes higher-priced exports via new cables

✅ Finland and Denmark seek EU action on capacity curtailments

A spat over electricity supplies is heating up in northern Europe. Sweden is blocking Norway from using its grids to transfer power from producers throughout the region. That’s angered Norway, which in turn has cut flows to its Nordic neighbor.

The dispute has built up around the use of cross-border power cables, which are a key part of Europe’s plans to decarbonize since they give adjacent countries access to low-carbon resources such as wind or hydropower. The electricity flows to wherever prices are higher, informed by how electricity is priced across Europe, without interference from grid operators -- but in the event of a supply squeeze, flows can be stopped.

Sweden moved to safeguard the security of its grid after Norway started increasing electricity exports through huge new cables to Germany and the U.K. Those exports at times have drawn energy away from Sweden, resulting in the country’s system operator cutting capacity at its Nordic borders, preventing exports but also hindering imports, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during winter.

“This is not a good situation in the long run,” Christian Holtz, a energy market consultant for Merlin & Metis AB.

Norway hit back last week by cutting flows to Sweden, this will prioritize better paying customers in Europe, amid Irish price spikes that highlight dispatchable shortages, giving them access to its vast hydro resources at the expense of its Nordic neighbors. 

By partially closing its borders Sweden can’t access imports either, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during the coldest days of the winter. 

In Denmark, unusual summer and autumn winds have at times delivered extraordinarily low electricity prices that ripple through regional markets.

The Swedish grid manager Svenska Kraftnat has reduced export capacity at cables across its borders by as much as half this year to keep operations secure. Finland and Denmark rely on imports too and the cuts will come at a cost for millions of homes and industries across the four nations already contending with record electricity rates this year. 

Finland and Denmark want the European Union to end the exemption to regulations that make such reductions possible in the first place, as Europe is losing nuclear power and facing tighter supply.

“Imports from our neighboring countries ensure adequacy at times of peak consumption,” said Reima Paivinen, head of operation at the Finland’s Fingrid. “The recent surge in electricity prices throughout Europe does not directly affect the adequacy of electricity, but prices may rise dramatically for short periods.”

Svenska Kraftnat says it’s not political -- it has no choice but to cut capacity until its old grids are expanded to handle the new direction of flows, a challenge mirrored by grid expansion woes in Germany that slow integration. That could take at least until 2030 to complete, it said earlier this year. At the same time, Norway halving available export capacity to about 1,200 megawatts will increase risk of shortages. 

“If we need more we will have to count on imports from other countries,” said Erik Ek, head of strategic operation at Svenska Kraftnat. “If that is not available, we will have to disconnect users the day it gets cold.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

China Solar Grid Parity signals unsubsidized industrial and commercial PV, rooftop solar, and feed-in tariff guarantees competing with grid electricity and coal power prices, driven by cost declines, policy reform, and technology advances.

Key Points

Point where PV in China meets or beats grid electricity, enabling unsubsidized industrial and commercial solar.

✅ City-level analysis shows cheaper PV than grid in 344 cities.

✅ 22% can beat coal power prices without subsidies.

✅ Soft-cost, permitting, and finance reforms speed uptake.

Solar power has become cheaper than grid electricity across China, a development that could boost the prospects of industrial and commercial solar, according to a new study.

Projects in every city analysed by the researchers could be built today without subsidy, at lower prices than those supplied by the grid, and around a fifth could also compete with the nation’s coal electricity prices.

They say grid parity – the “tipping point” at which solar generation costs the same as electricity from the grid – represents a key stage in the expansion of renewable energy sources.

While previous studies of nations such as Germany, where solar-plus-storage costs are already undercutting conventional power, and the US have concluded that solar could achieve grid parity by 2020 in most developed countries, some have suggested China would have to wait decades.

However, the new paper published in Nature Energy concludes a combination of technological advances, cost declines and government support has helped make grid parity a reality in Chinese today.

Despite these results, grid parity may not drive a surge in the uptake of solar, a leading analyst tells Carbon Brief.

Competitive pricing

China’s solar industry has rapidly expanded from a small, rural program in the 1990s to the largest in the world, with record 2016 solar growth underscoring the trend. It is both the biggest generator of solar power and the biggest installer of solar panels.

The installed capacity of solar panels in China in 2018 amounted to more than a third of the global total, with the country accounting for half the world’s solar additions that year.

Since 2000, the Chinese government has unveiled over 100 policies supporting the PV industry, and technological progress has helped make solar power less expensive. This has led to the cost of electricity from solar power dropping, as demonstrated in the chart below.

In their paper, Prof Jinyue Yan of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology and his colleagues explain that this “stunning” performance has been accelerated by government subsidies, but has also seen China overinvesting in what some describe as a clean energy's dirty secret of “redundant construction and overcapacity”. The authors write:

“Recently, the Chinese government has been trying to lead the PV industry onto a more sustainable and efficient development track by tightening incentive policies with China’s 531 New Policy.”

The researchers say the subsidy cuts under this policy in 2018 were a signal that the government wanted to make the industry less dependent on state support and shift its focus from scale to quality.

This, they say, has “brought the industry to a crossroads”, with discussions taking place in China about when solar electricity generation could achieve grid parity.

In their analysis, Yan and his team examined the prospects for building industrial and commercial solar projects without state support in 344 cities across China, attempting to gauge where or whether grid parity could be achieved.

The team estimated the total lifetime price of solar energy systems in all of these cities, taking into account net costs and profits, including project investments, electricity output and trading prices.

Besides establishing that installations in every city tested could supply cheaper electricity than the grid, they also compared solar to the price of coal-generated power. They found that 22% of the cities could build solar systems capable of producing electricity at cheaper prices than coal.

Embracing solar

Declining costs of solar technology, particularly crystalline silicon modules, mean the trend in China is also playing out around the world, with offshore wind cost declines reinforcing the shift. In May, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) said that by the beginning of next year, grid parity could become the global norm for the solar industry, and shifting price dynamics in Northern Europe illustrate the market impact.

Kingsmill Bond, an energy strategist at Carbon Tracker, says this is the first in-depth study he has seen looking at city-level solar costs in China, and is encouraged by this indication of solar becoming ever-more competitive, as seen in Germany's recent solar boost during the energy crisis. He tells Carbon Brief:

“The conclusion that industrial and commercial solar is cheaper than grid electricity means that the workshop of the world can embrace solar. Without subsidy and its distorting impacts, and driven by commercial gain.”

On the other hand, Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF, says the findings revealed by Yan and his team are “fairly old news” as the competitive price of rooftop solar in China has been known about for at least a year.

She notes that this does not mean there has been a huge accompanying rollout of industrial and commercial solar, and says this is partly because of the long-term thinking required for investment to be seen as worthwhile.

The lifetime of a PV system tends to be around two decades, whereas the average lifespan of a Chinese company is only around eight years, according to Chase. Furthermore, there is an even simpler explanation, as she explains to Carbon Brief:

“There’s also the fact that companies just can’t be bothered a lot of the time – there are roofs all over Europe where solar could probably save money, but people are not jumping to do it.”

According to Chase, a “much more exciting” development came earlier this year, when the Chinese government developed a policy for “subsidy-free solar”.

This involved guaranteeing the current coal-fired power price to solar plants for 20 years, creating what is essentially a low feed-in tariff and leading to what she describes as “a lot of nice, low-risk projects”.

As for the beneficial effects of grid parity, based on how things have played out in countries where it has already been achieved, Chase says it does not necessarily mean a significant uptake of solar power will follow:

“Grid parity solar is never as popular as subsidised solar, and ironically you don’t generally have a rush to build grid parity solar because you may as well wait until next year and get cheaper solar.”

Policy proposals

In their paper, Yan and his team lay out policy changes they think would help provide an economic incentive, in combination with grid parity, to encourage the uptake of solar power systems.

Technology costs may have fallen for smaller solar projects of the type being deployed on the rooftops of businesses, but they note that the so-called “soft costs” – including installation and maintenance – tend to be “very impactful”.

Specifically, they say aspects such as financing, land acquisition and grid accommodation, which make up over half the total cost, could be cut down:

“Labour costs are not significant [in China] because of the relatively low wages of direct labour and related installation overhead. Customer acquisition has largely been achieved in China by the mature market, with customers’ familiarity with PV systems, and with the perception that PV systems are a reliable technology. However, policymakers should consider strengthening the targeted policies on the following soft costs.”

Among the measures they suggest are new financing schemes, an effort to “streamline” the complicated procedures and taxes involved, and more geographically targeted government policies, alongside innovations like peer-to-peer energy sharing that can improve utilization.

As their analysis showed the price of solar electricity had fallen further in some cities than others, the researchers recommend targeting future subsidies at the cities that are performing less well – keeping costs to a minimum while still providing support when it is most needed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News