Gerry Wolff at TREC-UK updates the Desertec story

Click to Play

Gerry Wolff, TREC-UK coordinator, talks about the July 13, 2009, meeting in Munich, Germany, that created the Desertec Industrial Initiative to implement a network of concentrating solar collectors in North Africa for the generation of green electricity for local and European use, recorded from Wales, UK, July 16, 2009

Dan Bernath at MPP talks about marijuana reform

Click to Play

Dan Bernath, Assistant Communications Director, Marijuana Policy Project, talks about the reform of marijuana laws, recorded from Washington, D.C., on May 30, 2009

Cindy Pollard, PG&E spokesperson, clarifies views on net-metering and FITs

Click to Play

Cindy Pollard, spokesperson for Pacific Gas & Electric Company PG&E), provides details of the company's views on net-metering, feed-in tariff "performance standards," and the need for PG&E to get the energy credits associated with green electricity from FITs, recorded from Sacramento, California, on July 6, 2009

1. How much have net metering costs raised consumer prices under the 2.5% cap?

And 2. What does PG&E project would be the cost increase under a 10% cap?

That is the information that the CPUC was required to determine before the cap was raised. The cost benefit analysis has not been conducted, and we would still like to see just how much it will cost our customers. We believe it’s very important to look at the data before decisions on cap increases are made. The CPUC report on the costs and benefits of solar is due early next year.

We have not had that much solar in our territory until recently and PG&E is currently at only 1.3% of its system peak demand so the question is what will the costs be when we reach 2.5% and should we reach 10%.

We do know that NEM customers are credited at the full retail rate, which includes the power, transmission and distribution, and public purpose programs, which they do not currently pay. In addition they receive a rebate to help pay for the system and relief from the interconnection costs. The difference between what they pay and what they are credited is shifted to our non-solar customers.

3. What specifically does PG&E want for "performance standards"?

We want to make sure that if we’re going to head down the path of a solar program that we get what we think we’re going to get. We need have some reasonable assurances that the program is going to work. We would like to have firm deadlines for the projects to come online; performance assurance to protect against system operation and reliability costs associated with procurement planning should a program fail to materialize and commission authorization to establish other terms and conditions that are reasonable to ensure that the FIT program results in reliable renewable energy delivery.

4. Doesn't the logic of avoiding increases to customer prices under net metering also apply under feed-in tariffs?

Yes it does if you're overpaying for power as we are with the full retail credit we currently pay NEM customers. It is important to make sure the price is fair and that we get the renewable energy attributes, meaning that this power counts towards our renewable portfolio standards requirements.

PG&E's main objection to AB 1106 concerns "performance standards"

Click to Play

Cindy Pollard, spokesperson for PG&E, voices opposition to AB560, the Net Metering Cap Expansion Bill, and objects to AB 1106, the feed-in tariff bill, principally on grounds that it doesn't provide adequate "performance standards" for distributed generation connections to the grid, recorded from Sacramento, California, on July 3, 2009

Ted Ko at FIT Coalition talks about REESA and AB 1106

Click to Play

Ted Ko, Associate Executive Director of the FIT Coalition, talks about that group's efforts to amend AB 1106 to include a thorough-going feed-in tariff incorporating Wholesale Distributed Generation (WDG), recorded from San Francisco, California, on July 2, 2009

Claudia Eyzaguirre at Vote Solar on AB 560, net-metering cap raiser

Click to Play

Claudia Eyzaguirre, Solar Advocate at the Vote Solar Initiative (www.votesolar.org), discusses net metering and the effort, through AB 560, to raise the cap on this solar-friendly policy mechanism, recorded on July 2, 2009

AB 560--Net Metering Cap--hearing rescheduled for Thursday

Rosalind Jackson at Vote Solar in San Francisco tells Etopia News that the hearing scheduled for 9:00 am PDT tomorrow in Room 2040 of the California State Capitol to consider AB 560, a bill by Berkeley Assemblymember Nancy Skinner to raise the net-metering cap from 2.5% to 10%, has been postponed until Thursday, July 2nd. The change in schedule was just confirmed by the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, which says the meeting will be held at the same time and place on the 2nd of July.

PG&E, one of California's three big investor-owned utilities (IOUs), is rapidly approaching the 2.5% level of net-metering, a system under which utility customers are able to reduce their energy bills by feeding green electricity generated on their premises back into the electrical grid from which they otherwise receive it. PG&E opposes AB 560.

Net-metering differs from "feed-in tariffs" (FITs) in that FITs require utilities to pay for all the electricity they receive from user-producers, while net-metering involves driving the electric meter backwards, up to the point where the customer has a zero bill, after which time any additional electricity provided by the customer to the utility is being given for free to the power company.

Statewide net-metering exists on account of provisions of the California Solar Initiative, SB1. As generally understood, that law stipulates that when a utility derives 2.5% of its sold power from net-metering, the net-metering provision will expire and the utility will no longer be required to offer the program to its customers. Accordingly, unless the net-metering limit is raised from its current level, the success of this program will mean its imminent demise, which some observers believe would deal a crushing blow to California's solar industry.

Accordingly, Assemblymember Skinner has authored AB560, which would raise the net-metering program cap to 10%, in order to maintain the existence of the program and the health of the state's solar industry.