NV Energy’s newly implemented solar price increase has been met with disbelief and outrage. Just days ago, two NV Energy solar customers filed a lawsuit against Las Vegas electrical utility NV Energy. Their grievance with the company stems from NV Energy’s recent decision to impose increased rates across the board for their solar customers. Unlike proposed rate hikes in Arizona and other states, Nevada’s price increase is seen as particularly unfair as it applies to both new solar customers, and all previous solar customers as well. As many Nevada residents bought and installed panels under the assumption that they would save money in the long run, the case raises a worry about NV Energy’s ability to change the rules of the game as they please.

The price increase, which was put into effect toward the end of 2015, amounts to a nearly 40% increase in monthly bills. It was implemented in tandem with reductions to net metering credit, allowed by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, lowering rates from $0.11 to $0.09 in its first year, and lowering them to below $0.03 by 2020. As a result of the price hike, the incentives that caused so many to adopt solar in the first place have been effectively eliminated. The case’s plaintiffs, for instance, claim they each spent roughly $40,000 on their solar systems, money they would have saved had they been aware of the impending rate changes.

As the increase did away with an economic incentive to go solar, several major solar installers have been forced out of Nevada entirely. Solar City, SunRun, and Vivint all put an end to their Nevada operations, causing hundreds to lose their jobs. This, in turn, has caused some to regard NV Energy’s actions, in addition to being grossly unfair to existing solar customers, as being anti-competitive in nature. This suspicion is the basis for the case against the utility. They are accused of violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act as well as the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act in an attempt to maintain their monopoly on electricity provision in the state.

While many believe this reduction of solar incentives was designed to drive away the solar competition, NV Energy claims it is a legitimate means to shift the burden of grid maintenance from their non-solar customers. They claim these customers have been covering a disproportionate amount of the grid maintenance costs, while solar customers pay for less than their fair share. However, even if this is ruled to be the case, NV Energy isn’t out of hot water. The utility is also accused of providing false information to the state regulator in order to have the increase passed.

Many anxiously await the case’s outcome, and though it will likely not be resolved soon, democratic presidential hopefuls Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have publicly voiced their support of Nevada solar customers. Also, with roughly half of all states countrywide considering similar changes to their net metering programs, the ruling on this case is sure to be an influential one.

Sources:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-customers-launch-a-class-action-suit-against-nv-energy

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-regulators-refuse-to-back-down-on-net-metering-changes

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-customers-file-lawsuit-against-nv-energy-over-new-net-metering-rates/412360/

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/nevada-solar-battle-lawsuit/

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-nevada-solar-net-metering-changes

With scorching temperatures and nearly year-round sunshine, Arizona seems to be an ideal location to implement a rooftop PV system. However, with the possibility of nearly statewide rate hikes for solar customers, this may not be the case for long.   As it stands, the economic viability of solar power in the state hinges on the success of SolarCity’s lawsuit against utility service Salt River Project (SRP) over potentially unlawful rate increases.

Early last year, Arizona utility SRP proposed new rate structures and fees to be applied to their solar customers. This proposal came alongside a near halving of net metering rates, bringing them down from $0.09 to $0.05. The rate hike, amounting to about $50 per month for solar customers, ultimately strips solar power of its economic viability in SRP’s territory. Understandably, the rate hike has been accompanied by a significant drop in new rooftop solar applications in the area, with estimates for the decrease ranging from over 50% to 96%. SRP justifies this increase for solar users by asserting that their additional fees account for their fair share of electrical grid maintenance costs, the bill for which is currently being footed entirely by non-solar customers.

SolarCity, filed a lawsuit against SRP in response these proposed rate changes, contesting that the utility provider’s behavior is anti-competitive in nature, or in other words, that the new rate structure was engineered specifically to stifle competition.   It is this argument that forms the core of the company’s suit against SRP, which was recently allowed by an Arizona federal court judge to proceed in spite of SRP’s best attempts to prevent it from continuing. While SolarCity calls the rate hike “unacceptable… unlawful” and an “abuse of monopoly power”, SRP spokespersons are certain that SolarCity will have a difficult time establishing that SRP had no “reasonable business justifications for the current rate plans”.

Arizona solar users, installers, and utility companies alike are eagerly awaiting the outcome of this landmark case. The ruling in regards to the lawfulness of SRP’s rate hike will likely determine not only the viability of solar in their territory but in the state as a whole. If judges rule in favor of SRP and determine their rate hikes to be legitimate, it is imaginable that the other major Arizona utilities Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and Arizona Public Service (APS) will follow suit. In fact, both TEP and APS have issued disclaimers notifying new solar customers that they will be subject to any future rate hikes these utilities choose to implement. As a result, it seems inevitable that if it is determined that raising rates in this manner is indeed lawful, that TEP and APS will raise their prices in a manner comparable to SRP. The result of such actions would be that rooftop solar applications would no longer be economically viable in any metropolitan area of the state.

However, with the federal court’s recent decision to allow the case to proceed, the future is hopeful for SolarCity and solar energy in Arizona at large. SolarCity shares in the optimism, stating that they “look forward to showing that utilities cannot exploit their monopoly power” to stifle the competition they face from solar.

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2015/02/26/srp-board-oks-rate-hike-new-fees-solar-customers/24086473/

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/arizona-court-advances-solarcity-lawsuit-against-salt-river-project

http://blog.solarcity.com/our-response-to-anti-competitive-behavior-in-arizona

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solarcity-lawsuit-against-arizona-utility-to-go-forward_100021896/#axzz3xutNVKko