When some Vermont utilities started rejecting proposed home-grown solar installations last year, it looked like a plan to increase solar production in Vermont had been too successful.

Utilities were bumping up against a cap on so-called net-metered projects far faster than the lawmakers who’d designed the rules ever anticipated. Those utilities said it was time to put on the brakes; solar energy advocates argued that doing so would cripple solar development just as the industry was hitting its stride in Vermont. 

Now a plan to breakup that solar standoff is gaining traction in Montpelier. The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee advanced legislation on Friday that would relax the cap on homemade power to better match the demand for residential solar generation. The bill will head to the full House on Thursday. 

Kathryn Flagg was a Seven Days staff writer from 2012 through 2015. She completed a fellowship in environmental journalism at Middlebury College, and her work has also appeared in the Addison County Independent, Wyoming Public Radio and Orion Magazine.

One reply on “Lawmakers Advance ‘Solar Standoff’ Solution”

  1. The proposed legislation is not just about solar. It also includes wind, even though the PSD confirmed during testimony last week that the costs for net metered wind exceed the benefits, and the larger the turbines the greater the costs to ratepayers.
    Here’s an example, with information from GMP that came out during a 10 hour PSB technical hearing last Tuesday about the Northern Power Systems 100kw turbine installed in Vergennes at the Northlands Jobs Corp property (on state land). The deal is that GMP gets 90% of the power, while NJC gets 10%.
    The Board hearing officer asked what the “all in” cost was. The Department of PS attorney did not ask any questions that would have been relevant to ratepayers. See the info below, which indicates that the payback time for the Vergennes turbine exceeds the lifespan of the turbine.
    Don Lorraine of GMP was asked by the PSB hearing officer how much the installed cost of the Vergennes NPS 100 turbine is and his answer was “in excess of $500,000.” (audio of this is available)
    From a sworn statement by GMP’s Don Lorraine, Jan. 4, 2013, submitted in the Vergennes docket to the PSB:
    “if the Board required GMP to shut off the turbine during the pendency of this investigation, which GMP anticipates would take approximately six months, GMP would lose 85,000 kwh of production and Northland Job Corps loses 10% of production. This results in a 52.4% loss of energy production for GMP resulting in a loss of approximately $11,050 during this period. In addition, GMP would incur an additional financial impact of $3,000 associated with shutting down the turbine and turning it back on for an extended period of time.”
    If GMP would lose $11,050 for 6 months, then it looks the turbine generates about $23,000 a year in income from selling electricity.
    $500,000 divided by 23,0000 is a 21 year payback period.
    From a filing in the same docket with the PSB on Sept. 18, 2012: “GMP and NPS estimate that, if it were to install the software, the reduced generation would result in loss of 243 kwh per year, equal to .0015% per year based on an annual production of 162,000 kwh produced. This would cost GMP approximately $35.00. This cost, combined with the cost of software installation, is approximately 15% of the energy cost savings GMP would benefit from during the first year of use of the turbine. The turbine produces approximately 160,000 kwh per year. GMP is able to use 90% of these kwh for its energy use (144,000 kwh). Each kwh is approximately 13 cents. Thus, GMP would save $18,720 through one year of use of the turbine.”
    160,000 kwh x .13 is $20,800, which is about $3000 lower than the information they provided to the Board on Jan. 4, 2013.
    $500,000 divided by $20,800 is 24 years.
    From a vtdigger article about the NPS 100 in Bridport, it says it has a 20 year life span.
    http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/31…
    The tower of the NPS100 wind turbine installed at Blue Spruce farm is 121 feet tall. Each blade is 39 feet long. It can produce about 155,000kWh per year – equal to the amount of electricity used by 25 homes. It has a 20 year life span.
    GMP is applying to put another one of these NPS 100 wind turbines next to the prison in Swanton. Does anybody look at the costs of these installations and payback time, lifespan, and impacts on ratepayers? Seems like the legislature needs to take a further look at the wind portion of the net metering legislation.

Comments are closed.