By Rory Christian

President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring coal plants to reduce pollution while incentivizing clean energy sources. Taken together, and with the fact that the president pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement, America’s energy agenda gives me pause and cause to worry.

We don’t yet know what the DOE report is going to say, but judging from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s past stance on energy and his latest statements on the matter, it could suggest that the coal industry that has long-been economically uncompetitive due to oversupplied, cheap natural gas, could be propped-up to spew toxic emissions into the future.

Here is the reality: climate change is not a political issue; it is the single greatest threat we face as a generation. Clean energy is our best option to prevent the environmental situation from getting worse because it is at the core of every climate issue. Fortunately, Americans agree on this, and know something must be done.

New York is one example of how Americans and their businesses can “dominate” on their own and help determine the nation’s clean energy future. Moreover, their united effort reflects American spirit and innovation – not just during an “energy week,” but every day.

How ‘Energy Week’ could learn from state clean energy leaders
Click To Tweet

In the years since Hurricane Sandy, New York State and New York City have each committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 while increasing clean energy and energy efficiency in buildings.

And, most importantly, New York backs-up its commitments by allocating funds toward programs, incentives, and projects to accelerate the transition to renewables where it is needed most:

• Since 2012 the State’s solar capacity has increased five-fold (from 175 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts) as a result of Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), New York’s initiative to build a more reliable and resilient electric system.
• Through its OneNYC plan, New York City has committed to installing 100 megawatts of solar on public buildings and to help private buildings put 250 megawatts more in their premises by 2050.
• The New York City Housing Authority has plans to install 25 megawatts of solar in public housing properties over the next 10 years as part of the Renew300 program established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), is dedicated to implementing projects in state facilities, such as the recently established Retrofit Accelerator to help private adoption of distributed energy resources.

Policies implemented so far in New York have created well over 10,000 jobs in the local solar energy, with another 70,000 working to improve energy efficiency.

Locally, these programs will do more than just prepare New York for potential extreme weather events.  They will position the state to be a domestic leader in the clean energy space – especially in the northeast – home to businesses and jobs that will grow our economy.

And with domestic leaders like New York, the U.S. can be better positioned on the global energy field, which now includes clean energy as a major player.

Photo source: Michael Discenza

President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring […]

The post How ‘Energy Week’ could learn from state clean energy leaders appeared first on Energy Exchange.

On today’s show David Muth, Director of Gulf Restoration, National Wildlife Federation stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about the importance of restoration of the Mississippi River Delta. On the second half the show, Dr. Alex Kolker, Associate Professor at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium joins the program to talk with Simone & Jacques about subsidence, sediment diversion and even potholes! Listen Now Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Deltas 101 – Back to Basics appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show David Muth, Director of Gulf Restoration, National Wildlife Federation stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about the importance of restoration of the Mississippi River Delta. On the second half the show, Dr. Alex Kolker, Associate Professor at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium joins the program to talk with Simone & Jacques about subsidence, sediment diversion and even potholes! Listen Now Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Deltas 101 – Back to Basics appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show David Muth, Director of Gulf Restoration, National Wildlife Federation stops by to talk with Jacques & Simone about the importance of restoration of the Mississippi River Delta. On the second half the show, Dr. Alex Kolker, Associate Professor at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium joins the program to talk with Simone & Jacques about subsidence, sediment diversion and even potholes! Listen Now Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Deltas 101 – Back to Basics appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Erica Morehouse

Inside the California State Capitol building in Sacramento. Photo via Flickr/ kkanouse

California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to cleaning up the air.

The integrity of the cap is critical, because it is the cap that provides the guarantee that California will meet its climate target.

The comedian Larry David once said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.” Elected leaders can probably identify with that sentiment, as they take on the unenviable task of constructing a deal among multiple parties — one that would be a critical step forward for climate action, but might still leave everyone involved at least a little dissatisfied.

As they do, we at EDF will be laser-focused on one question related to cap-and-trade design: Does the deal protect the environmental integrity of the cap?

In the current negotiations, the issue of integrity comes to the fore with one particular aspect of the draft proposal: the design of a "price ceiling" for emission allowances.

It’s all about the cap…

The integrity of the cap is critical, because it is the cap that provides the guarantee that California will meet its target. California has a portfolio of climate policies working together to reduce emissions, and all have their role to play. The signature feature of the cap-and-trade program is that it places a firm limit on carbon pollution and holds the state accountable for achieving the climate targets set in law.

The central importance of the cap in ensuring that the state meets its goals is critical to keep in mind when considering one key aspect of the compromise deal being discussed in the Capitol: a so-called “price ceiling” on the allowances polluters need to comply with their obligations under the cap. While a limit on allowance prices might sound like a good idea, if poorly designed it could come at a significant cost to the integrity of the program — because the only way to keep prices from rising above the ceiling is to allow unlimited emissions.

In other words, a price ceiling is potentially a blank check to polluters that risks busting a hole in the cap. That introduces the risk that California blows past its targets — undermining its claim to climate leadership, and raising the chances of climate catastrophe.

A plan to board up the busted cap

The potential saving grace in the current proposal is that they have a plan for how to board up the hole in California’s climate target if the price ceiling is deployed. The Air Resources Board is required to use revenue raised through compliance at the price ceiling to secure high-quality reductions to make up for any excess above California’s cap. It’s important that this provision be protected, by guaranteeing that all the revenue from a price ceiling is used to reduce emissions, and by imposing a requirement that the emissions debt created by the price ceiling is repaid on at least a ton-for-ton basis.

Now, a far better strategy would be to use or strengthen the tools that have kept cap-and-trade costs down so far, like a reserve of allowances and offsets to avoid getting close to the price ceiling in the first place. But a plan for boarding up the hole is better than nothing at all.

Price ceiling should be a “Break glass in case of emergency” — and only an emergency strategy

The best argument that can be made for a price ceiling is that it can prevent even worse outcomes, such as prices rising high enough to threaten the continued existence of the program. To be clear, such an outcome is highly unlikely — but anyone who lived through the electricity crisis of 2000 knows that we can’t rule anything out.

If a price ceiling is to be included, it must be as a last resort — a kind of “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” strategy. And just like a fire alarm behind a pane of glass, it should really be reserved for genuine emergencies — not simply to let polluters off the hook.

EDF will be laser-focused on one question related to cap-and-trade design: Does the deal protect the environmental integrity of the cap?

It’s also important that the program itself be allowed to function as intended. The beauty of the cap-and-trade program is that it lets the price rise or fall to whatever level is necessary to cut emissions in line with the target. A high price serves as a valuable signal to spur investment in new innovations that can then drive costs down. Set the price ceiling too low, and you cut off that signal — potentially driving prices up in the long run.

All of that means that the price ceiling needs to be high enough that it doesn’t threaten the integrity of the program, or interfere with the ordinary working of the market.

The current proposal wisely provides some very clear and specific direction to the Air Resources Board which will be able to carefully consider and get extensive stakeholder input before setting on a final number. This is not giving carte blanche to an executive agency but rather identifying factors that will dictate an acceptable range and also recognizing the complexity and importance of setting the right price ceiling number.

EDF would much prefer that the signature feature of California’s climate policy, the cap, not be put at risk in the first place. But we are also committed to actively working toward a deal while still fighting for the best possible safeguards for the cap.

Even as we have to contemplate compromises in California it is important to keep our eye on shining optimism that California does represent. The state is debating how not whether to act on climate and for many enduring the sometimes demoralizing swamps of D.C. this is an enviable place to be.

California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to […]

California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to […]

California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to […]

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

While progress rolls backwards, reversing environmental regulations designed to protect our families health, the country’s mayors are losing no time in getting proactive in implementing solutions on how to combat climate change. They are preparing their cities for future eventualities, with an eye to innovation. US mayors have embarked on building the groundwork to protect the local populations.

Before the 85th annual meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), was held in Florida (June 23-June 26), I sat in on a press call where several mayors gave their personal reactions to Trump’s dismissal of the Paris agreement.

The consistent point of view was that the Trump administration’s stance was short-sighted, would impact the country’s political growth, and that it set up a “false choice” between jobs/industry and the environment. The main takeaway was that the federal government was off-track, and the private sector and mayors were ready to take the lead at the local level.

Highlights from the annual meeting of US Mayors:

Greg Stanton Mayor of Phoenix, Democrat:

“We have to do right by our children and grandchildren. Trump has abdicated. The eyes of the world are upon us. We’re local leaders. We are fighting drought in Arizona. It’s a local issue. We have entrepreneurs creating jobs. That what the President is missing. It’s a big mistake. We need to give people hope. The world is changing and there are new ways of delivering energy. We’re prepared to be adversaries.”

Elizabeth Kautz Mayor of Burnsville, Republican:

“The mayors won’t quit. We have signed the Kyoto agreement, formed partnerships with the mayors of the European Union, China and Mexico. We must protect the planet. We need to protect our water, and recharge aquifers. We’re celebrating a lot of successes. We don’t need Washington, D.C. to tell us the right thing to do. We will exceed Paris!”

Jonathan Mitchell Mayor of New Bedford, Democrat:

“We are the largest commercial fishing port in the United States. We have concerns about coastal issues and water. It is the singular issue of our day. Mayors are stepping into the void left by the federal government. We are leaders in solar, and are working on offshore wind initiatives. Our influence extends across the world. We are promoting a lower carbon footprint.”

Jim Brainard Carmel. Republican:

“My city is 90 percent Republican. But they want a good environment. Greatness is not how Trump sees it. We need to leave the earth in better shape. The American leadership will come from U.S. mayors. 85 percent of Americans live in cities. Mayors have to continue to make changes. You can’t presume that all Republicans stand with Trump. It’s up to mayors to make this a priority.”

The 85th Annual meeting took place in Miami Beach, a place that has plenty to worry about when it comes to sea-level rise. I watched that city’s mayor, Philip Levine, speak before he led a panel. He delivered his comments with good humor and plenty of jokes, but he was distinctly serious about the fact Miami was “not debating sea-level rise:”

“Residents and citizens must get involved. Sea level is caused by climate change. I want the city to become resilient. We’ve got to take action. It’s not a political issue. Rising oceans are not Republican or Democrat. We are the poster child for sea level rise. We’ve seen what it does.”

The conference passed numerous resolutions, including one titled: Supporting a Cities-Driven Plan to Reverse Climate Change. The closing statement read:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors calls upon the Trump Administration and Congress to support the fight against climate change by fully committing themselves to Paris Climate Accord, the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other efforts that will provide cities the tools they need to combat climate change.”

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who took over the mantle of President of the USCM, was clear to his colleagues about their mission. “In these times, let’s be bold. It’s our time,” he said.

It’s encouraging to see America’s mayors stepping up to lead the fight against climate change. As parents, we need to continue pressuring our elected officials to follow sound science and uphold our health protections.

Graphic via Compact of Mayors

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on. Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies show solar helps keep the electric […]

By John Hall

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on.

Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies show solar helps keep the electric grid balanced and reliable. What’s not to like?

Well, some utilities see customer-owned solar power as a threat to their profits – and want to stop its growth.

That’s why El Paso Electric has a new proposal that discriminates against homes and small businesses with solar panels. This proposal unfairly penalizes people who install solar, limits customer choice, and works against sunny El Paso’s impressive solar potential. Let’s break down the details.

The utility

El Paso Electric serves approximately 400,000 customers in West Texas and New Mexico, and supports solar power – but only when the utility owns and controls the resources. This isn’t the first time El Paso Electric has tried to block solar growth – last year, it unsuccessfully attempted to hit solar customers with a new, unexpected monthly charge. Now the utility’s back with a similar agenda.

The utility’s proposal

El Paso Electric is proposing a new rate structure that targets solar customers. If the utility succeeds, people and small businesses with solar panels will suddenly be hit with a higher monthly customer charge, as well as a new charge with which they will likely be unfamiliar: a demand charge.

A demand charge is a fee the customer pays based on the maximum amount of energy they use at any given point over the course of a month. A demand charge is normally imposed on larger commercial customers, like big box stores, not homes and small businesses. Today, El Paso Electric does not even measure the demand of individual residential or small commercial customers, meaning people don’t have the information needed to understand how their demand charge would be calculated. And if the utility gets its way, it will not notify a customer of their maximum demand for the prior month until weeks after the fact – denying customers the ability to manage their highest demand, which could result in a substantial fee.

El Paso Electric also proposes all solar customers (but not all customers) be switched to a time-of-use rate that charges more for electricity used in the summer during the hot day. If done right, time-of-use pricing can encourage the use of clean energy, but El Paso Electric’s proposal misses the mark.

People and solar lose

The utility isn’t going after the big players – like industrial customers or megastore chains – whose energy-use is significant and makes up a large part of El Paso Electric’s total demand. Instead, the utility’s targeting individual people and small businesses with solar, who have little means to fight back and make up a little more than one half of one percent of the utility’s Texas customers.

Moreover, the proposal is a bait-and-switch: El Paso Electric encouraged customers to install solar generation by offering financial incentives, and now wants to impose high charges on those same customers, who likely purchased solar to buy less electricity and save money.

El Paso Electric publicly claims to support energy efficiency and solar. For example, the utility touts its investment in solar facilities, and advertises its growing community solar program. But  it seems the utility only supports solar when it owns the panels, not when customers do.

The clock is ticking

El Paso Electric’s hearing is later this summer, from August 21 – September 1. If the utility succeeds, new rates will start to be collected later this fall, but the higher rates will apply for usage since July 18th. The El Paso City Council just rejected the proposal, so El Paso Electric will consolidate its appeal of that decision into its current application at the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

El Pasoans will never be able to reap the rewards of their city’s solar potential if their utility nips customer-owned solar in the bud. Environmental Defense Fund and others have intervened in this case to protect Texas’ burgeoning solar economy and ensure El Paso Electric does not get away with its harmful efforts. Stay tuned.

 

Photo source: Richard Schmidt-Zuper

By John Hall

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on.

Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies show solar helps keep the electric grid balanced and reliable. What’s not to like?

Well, some utilities see customer-owned solar power as a threat to their profits – and want to stop its growth.

That’s why El Paso Electric has a new proposal that discriminates against homes and small businesses with solar panels. This proposal unfairly penalizes people who install solar, limits customer choice, and works against sunny El Paso’s impressive solar potential. Let’s break down the details.

The utility

El Paso Electric serves approximately 400,000 customers in West Texas and New Mexico, and supports solar power – but only when the utility owns and controls the resources. This isn’t the first time El Paso Electric has tried to block solar growth – last year, it unsuccessfully attempted to hit solar customers with a new, unexpected monthly charge. Now the utility’s back with a similar agenda.

The utility’s proposal

El Paso Electric is proposing a new rate structure that targets solar customers. If the utility succeeds, people and small businesses with solar panels will suddenly be hit with a higher monthly customer charge, as well as a new charge with which they will likely be unfamiliar: a demand charge.

A demand charge is a fee the customer pays based on the maximum amount of energy they use at any given point over the course of a month. A demand charge is normally imposed on larger commercial customers, like big box stores, not homes and small businesses. Today, El Paso Electric does not even measure the demand of individual residential or small commercial customers, meaning people don’t have the information needed to understand how their demand charge would be calculated. And if the utility gets its way, it will not notify a customer of their maximum demand for the prior month until weeks after the fact – denying customers the ability to manage their highest demand, which could result in a substantial fee.

El Paso Electric also proposes all solar customers (but not all customers) be switched to a time-of-use rate that charges more for electricity used in the summer during the hot day. If done right, time-of-use pricing can encourage the use of clean energy, but El Paso Electric’s proposal misses the mark.

This city has impressive clean energy potential, but its utility is trying to block solar’s growth
Click To Tweet

People and solar lose

The utility isn’t going after the big players – like industrial customers or megastore chains – whose energy-use is significant and makes up a large part of El Paso Electric’s total demand. Instead, the utility’s targeting individual people and small businesses with solar, who have little means to fight back and make up a little more than one half of one percent of the utility’s Texas customers.

Moreover, the proposal is a bait-and-switch: El Paso Electric encouraged customers to install solar generation by offering financial incentives, and now wants to impose high charges on those same customers, who likely purchased solar to buy less electricity and save money.

El Paso Electric publicly claims to support energy efficiency and solar. For example, the utility touts its investment in solar facilities, and advertises its growing community solar program. But  it seems the utility only supports solar when it owns the panels, not when customers do.

The clock is ticking

El Paso Electric’s hearing is later this summer, from August 21 – September 1. If the utility succeeds, new rates will start to be collected later this fall, but the higher rates will apply for usage since July 18th. The El Paso City Council just rejected the proposal, so El Paso Electric will consolidate its appeal of that decision into its current application at the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

El Pasoans will never be able to reap the rewards of their city’s solar potential if their utility nips customer-owned solar in the bud. Environmental Defense Fund and others have intervened in this case to protect Texas’ burgeoning solar economy and ensure El Paso Electric does not get away with its harmful efforts. Stay tuned.

 

Photo source: Richard Schmidt-Zuper

By John Hall

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on.

Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies show solar helps keep the electric grid balanced and reliable. What’s not to like?

Well, some utilities see customer-owned solar power as a threat to their profits – and want to stop its growth.

That’s why El Paso Electric has a new proposal that discriminates against homes and small businesses with solar panels. This proposal unfairly penalizes people who install solar, limits customer choice, and works against sunny El Paso’s impressive solar potential. Let’s break down the details.

The utility

El Paso Electric serves approximately 400,000 customers in West Texas and New Mexico, and supports solar power – but only when the utility owns and controls the resources. This isn’t the first time El Paso Electric has tried to block solar growth – last year, it unsuccessfully attempted to hit solar customers with a new, unexpected monthly charge. Now the utility’s back with a similar agenda.

The utility’s proposal

El Paso Electric is proposing a new rate structure that targets solar customers. If the utility succeeds, people and small businesses with solar panels will suddenly be hit with a higher monthly customer charge, as well as a new charge with which they will likely be unfamiliar: a demand charge.

A demand charge is a fee the customer pays based on the maximum amount of energy they use at any given point over the course of a month. A demand charge is normally imposed on larger commercial customers, like big box stores, not homes and small businesses. Today, El Paso Electric does not even measure the demand of individual residential or small commercial customers, meaning people don’t have the information needed to understand how their demand charge would be calculated. And if the utility gets its way, it will not notify a customer of their maximum demand for the prior month until weeks after the fact – denying customers the ability to manage their highest demand, which could result in a substantial fee.

El Paso Electric also proposes all solar customers (but not all customers) be switched to a time-of-use rate that charges more for electricity used in the summer during the hot day. If done right, time-of-use pricing can encourage the use of clean energy, but El Paso Electric’s proposal misses the mark.

This city has impressive clean energy potential, but its utility is trying to block solar’s growth
Click To Tweet

People and solar lose

The utility isn’t going after the big players – like industrial customers or megastore chains – whose energy-use is significant and makes up a large part of El Paso Electric’s total demand. Instead, the utility’s targeting individual people and small businesses with solar, who have little means to fight back and make up a little more than one half of one percent of the utility’s Texas customers.

Moreover, the proposal is a bait-and-switch: El Paso Electric encouraged customers to install solar generation by offering financial incentives, and now wants to impose high charges on those same customers, who likely purchased solar to buy less electricity and save money.

El Paso Electric publicly claims to support energy efficiency and solar. For example, the utility touts its investment in solar facilities, and advertises its growing community solar program. But  it seems the utility only supports solar when it owns the panels, not when customers do.

The clock is ticking

El Paso Electric’s hearing is later this summer, from August 21 – September 1. If the utility succeeds, new rates will start to be collected later this fall, but the higher rates will apply for usage since July 18th. The El Paso City Council just rejected the proposal, so El Paso Electric will consolidate its appeal of that decision into its current application at the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

El Pasoans will never be able to reap the rewards of their city’s solar potential if their utility nips customer-owned solar in the bud. Environmental Defense Fund and others have intervened in this case to protect Texas’ burgeoning solar economy and ensure El Paso Electric does not get away with its harmful efforts. Stay tuned.

 

Photo source: Richard Schmidt-Zuper

By John Hall

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on.

Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies show solar helps keep the electric grid balanced and reliable. What’s not to like?

Well, some utilities see customer-owned solar power as a threat to their profits – and want to stop its growth.

That’s why El Paso Electric has a new proposal that discriminates against homes and small businesses with solar panels. This proposal unfairly penalizes people who install solar, limits customer choice, and works against sunny El Paso’s impressive solar potential. Let’s break down the details.

The utility

El Paso Electric serves approximately 400,000 customers in West Texas and New Mexico, and supports solar power – but only when the utility owns and controls the resources. This isn’t the first time El Paso Electric has tried to block solar growth – last year, it unsuccessfully attempted to hit solar customers with a new, unexpected monthly charge. Now the utility’s back with a similar agenda.

The utility’s proposal

El Paso Electric is proposing a new rate structure that targets solar customers. If the utility succeeds, people and small businesses with solar panels will suddenly be hit with a higher monthly customer charge, as well as a new charge with which they will likely be unfamiliar: a demand charge.

A demand charge is a fee the customer pays based on the maximum amount of energy they use at any given point over the course of a month. A demand charge is normally imposed on larger commercial customers, like big box stores, not homes and small businesses. Today, El Paso Electric does not even measure the demand of individual residential or small commercial customers, meaning people don’t have the information needed to understand how their demand charge would be calculated. And if the utility gets its way, it will not notify a customer of their maximum demand for the prior month until weeks after the fact – denying customers the ability to manage their highest demand, which could result in a substantial fee.

El Paso Electric also proposes all solar customers (but not all customers) be switched to a time-of-use rate that charges more for electricity used in the summer during the hot day. If done right, time-of-use pricing can encourage the use of clean energy, but El Paso Electric’s proposal misses the mark.

This city has impressive clean energy potential, but its utility is trying to block solar’s growth
Click To Tweet

People and solar lose

The utility isn’t going after the big players – like industrial customers or megastore chains – whose energy-use is significant and makes up a large part of El Paso Electric’s total demand. Instead, the utility’s targeting individual people and small businesses with solar, who have little means to fight back and make up a little more than one half of one percent of the utility’s Texas customers.

Moreover, the proposal is a bait-and-switch: El Paso Electric encouraged customers to install solar generation by offering financial incentives, and now wants to impose high charges on those same customers, who likely purchased solar to buy less electricity and save money.

El Paso Electric publicly claims to support energy efficiency and solar. For example, the utility touts its investment in solar facilities, and advertises its growing community solar program. But  it seems the utility only supports solar when it owns the panels, not when customers do.

The clock is ticking

El Paso Electric’s hearing is later this summer, from August 21 – September 1. If the utility succeeds, new rates will start to be collected later this fall, but the higher rates will apply for usage since July 18th. The El Paso City Council just rejected the proposal, so El Paso Electric will consolidate its appeal of that decision into its current application at the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

El Pasoans will never be able to reap the rewards of their city’s solar potential if their utility nips customer-owned solar in the bud. Environmental Defense Fund and others have intervened in this case to protect Texas’ burgeoning solar economy and ensure El Paso Electric does not get away with its harmful efforts. Stay tuned.

 

Photo source: Richard Schmidt-Zuper

The list of solar power’s benefits goes on and on. Solar doesn’t pollute or waste water. Solar is getting cheaper every day, making it an increasingly affordable option for people to produce their own electricity and save money on their electric bills. The solar industry is employing thousands of people across Texas. And numerous studies […]

The Mississippi River was leveed in the early 20th century, specifically for the purposes of flood control and navigation. Relative to navigation, we created a world-class system. We walled the river in, hitching its power to creative engineering, the result of which has been a system which rivals any in the world. Specifically, the five Lower Mississippi River ports handle more than 500 million tons of domestic and foreign cargo annually, including exports and imports. Together, these area ports account ...

Read The Full Story

The post How Can We Create a Sustainable Future for South Louisiana, Navigation and Other Industries? appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The Mississippi River was leveed in the early 20th century, specifically for the purposes of flood control and navigation. Relative to navigation, we created a world-class system. We walled the river in, hitching its power to creative engineering, the result of which has been a system which rivals any in the world. Specifically, the five Lower Mississippi River ports handle more than 500 million tons of domestic and foreign cargo annually, including exports and imports. Together, these area ports account ...

Read The Full Story

The post How Can We Create a Sustainable Future for South Louisiana, Navigation and Other Industries? appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The Mississippi River was leveed in the early 20th century, specifically for the purposes of flood control and navigation. Relative to navigation, we created a world-class system. We walled the river in, hitching its power to creative engineering, the result of which has been a system which rivals any in the world. Specifically, the five Lower Mississippi River ports handle more than 500 million tons of domestic and foreign cargo annually, including exports and imports. Together, these area ports account ...

Read The Full Story

The post How Can We Create a Sustainable Future for South Louisiana, Navigation and Other Industries? appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.