Indiana Senate Bill 309

[GRickard]

I live in Kentucky, but work in southern Indiana so this doesn't directly affect me... Yet. I saw in the news where a (R) state senator that received a $10k campaign contribution from a local utility has introduced a bill that would ban net metering in Indiana by 2027. He has proposed a "sell all/buy all" system for residential solar producers where you would be forced to sell 100% of the solar power produced to the utility at wholesale rates(2.9 cents) and then purchase that power back at retail rates(16 cents here). What's worse is the producer would also receive a 1099 from the utility to pay taxes on what was sold at wholesale rates.

There is one guy here that I work with that will be affected by this and he is meeting with his rep this afternoon. Right now, as I understand it, the bill is in committee and hopefully it won't get any farther but the current political climate in the state does favor big business. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this one.

Greg

[adoublee]

Being forced to sell all energy generated would be insanity but might be what they are seeking. Being able to self-consume and only be paid at wholesale for what gets exported might be reasonable. However, wholesale should really be wholesale-value which might include some credit for the increased time-value of solar and the reduced burden on distribution infrastructure. However, that is "to hard" and so the fairness pendulum will have to swing back and forth and we are required to play by the utilities rules while on-grid. The utility WILL NOT lose money, whether they impose a tax on footsteps or garnish wages to get it.

[solar pete]

Wow, good pick up GRickard, that is just plain crazy, that they could even contemplate not allowing someone to use the power that they generate, shows the mentality of the Utilities. They do not give a crap about people/ community/ the greater good. They are a bunch of money grubbing $^#21

Ok rant over, but seriously this needs to be made public so it can be fought.

[Sunking]

I do not believe a word of it.Fake News comes to mind.

[GRickard]

Sunking,
You're welcome to read the bill yourself. If you don't believe this, then google it for yourself.

https://legiscan.com/IN/text/SB0309/2017

Also, I forgot to mention earlier that there is no "grandfathering" in this bill. It specifically says that July 1, 2027 all net metering contracts "expire and are unenforceable". Definitely written by the power company for the power company.

Greg

[DanKegel]

I gave it a very quick look.

2027 is not the worst date in the world to shut down net metering. It's ten years of warning. I wouldn't fight that part too hard; that subsidy has to wind down at some point.

More worrisome is that it sets an upper limit on the replacement rate paid to solar customers which might be lower than the true value of solar over a long enough horizon, and that it also sets an upper limit of 1% of total load for net metering customers. Both of those might cramp solar expansion unduly.

[solar pete]

Ok, what freaked me out about this, is the bit that said.... "proposed a "sell all/buy all" system for residential solar producers where you would be forced to sell 100% of the solar power produced to the utility at wholesale rates(2.9 cents) and then purchase that power back at retail rates(16 cents here).".....that is plain crazy.

I know Net Metering will go away one day, it should be replaced with a feed in tarif (FiT), thats pretty much what happened here in OZ, feed in tariff here is about $0.06 cents at the moment, and to me thats to low. It should be at the same as wholesale rate.

[inetdog]

Ok, what freaked me out about this, is the bit that said.... "proposed a "sell all/buy all" system for residential solar producers where you would be forced to sell 100% of the solar power produced to the utility at wholesale rates(2.9 cents) and then purchase that power back at retail rates(16 cents here).".....that is plain crazy.

I know Net Metering will go away one day, it should be replaced with a feed in tarif (FiT), thats pretty much what happened here in OZ, feed in tariff here is about $0.06 cents at the moment, and to me thats to low. It should be at the same as wholesale rate.

The reasoning goes like this: "If you did not have the grid connection, your GTI would not work. So since you cannot use your GTI without us, we will contractually require you to see that power to us if we want it.
The same would not apply to an off grid system, even one which had a GTI option, but the bill might be written to interfere with that kind of system too.

About as equitable and sensible as the state legislature that came close to passing a bit to set the value of pi equal to exactly 3 to make calculations by land assessors easier.

[DanKegel]

Holy cow, that's an "f*** you" provision if I've ever seen one!

"Sec. 15. To ensure that a customer is properly charged for the costs of the electricity delivery system through which an electricity supplier provides retail electric service to the customer:
(1) all distributed generation produced by the customer shall be purchased by the electricity supplier at the rate approved by the commission under section 13 of this chapter; and
(2) all electricity consumed by the customer at the premises shall be considered electricity supplied by the electricity supplier and is subject to the applicable retail rate schedule."

That's a straight-up tax on solar.

[GRickard]

The reasoning goes like this: "If you did not have the grid connection, your GTI would not work. So since you cannot use your GTI without us, we will contractually require you to see that power to us if we want it.

When I installed my panels back in March of 2016, my coop was converting my unused hours each month to cash (at retail rate) that could be used to pay the monthly connection charge only. Back in the fall, I was notified that they will no longer be doing that. Now all of my unused hours will be banked until needed (no limit on how much or how long). Also, under a recent rate increase, they raised the monthly connection fee to $18.20/month. I found this very reasonable considering I am getting the benefit of using the grid and should contribute to the line maintenance cost.

What the senator from Indiana has proposed with the "sell all/buy all" provision seems to me to be bordering on unconstitutional to force a person to sell something they produce(when they can use it) in order to buy it back at a much higher cost.

[J.P.M.]

When I installed my panels back in March of 2016, my coop was converting my unused hours each month to cash (at retail rate) that could be used to pay the monthly connection charge only. Back in the fall, I was notified that they will no longer be doing that. Now all of my unused hours will be banked until needed (no limit on how much or how long). Also, under a recent rate increase, they raised the monthly connection fee to $18.20/month. I found this very reasonable considering I am getting the benefit of using the grid and should contribute to the line maintenance cost.

What the senator from Indiana has proposed with the "sell all/buy all" provision seems to me to be bordering on unconstitutional to force a person to sell something they produce(when they can use it) in order to buy it back at a much higher cost.

How about: Their grid, their rules ?

[solar pete]

Or how about sticking to the rules that are in place, that would work. Sell all / BuyAll , you have got to be joking

[jflorey2]

How about: Their grid, their rules ?

If it was a free market, that would make sense.

But if I tried to install a power distribution system to sell power to people, I would be told "no, sorry, your POCO has a monopoly on power here; you sell power and you go to jail." And to get that monopoly status, the POCO has to agree to abide by the rules of a public utility, answerable to the public (generally in the form of a public utilities commission, or URC, or PSC.) So it's not really their grid. It's the PUC's grid.

Now, change the status of those companies, and allow (say) four power companies to use the public right of way for power distribution, and I'd agree - let all four do whatever they want and let the market decide.

[SunEagle]

Or how about sticking to the rules that are in place, that would work. Sell all / BuyAll , you have got to be joking

Hopefully that law will not be approved. It certainly seems to be a power play by the politicians to support the POCO's even at the expense of the customers that voted that Senator in.

[azdave]

the POCO has to agree to abide by the rules of a public utility, answerable to the public (generally in the form of a public utilities commission, or URC, or PSC.)

Sounds good in theory to have a utilities commission in place (for reasonable checks and balances of a public monopoly) but in Arizona, the ink on new commission members business cards was barely dry before they voted to end all net metering in the state. These were the candidates who campaigned heavily on radio and TV as "Solar Friendly" (not residential solar apparently). I've read that millions in dark money was spent getting those candidates into office so the vote to end net metering of 4-1 was really not a surprise.