\n
\naccording to GEFA:<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\nNet metering is the process whereby an energy consumer produces energy
\nand then sells some or all of this energy to the “grid”,
\nor major
\nenergy producers in the state. Under Georgia\u2019s net metering laws,
\nstate residents and businesses can purchase and operate green energy
\ncapital, including photovoltaics, wind energy and fuel cells, and use
\nthis energy on-site. These residents and businesses may then sell any
\nun-used, additional energy produced on-site to their energy provider.
\nThere is a maximum of 10 kilowatts (kW) for residential applications
\nand up to 100 kW for commercial applications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAs you can see by GEFA’s pie chart, solar energy was too small to chart
\nas a source of energy in Georgia as of 2004.
\nWith solar, we can burn less coal and uranium.<\/p>\n\nSolar\u00a0Energy\u00a0Industries\u00a0Association\u00a0(SEIA) has a report,
\n
\nSolar Net Metering in California<\/a>,<\/p>\n\nProtecting Net energy metering (NEM) is the top policy priority of the
\nSolar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) for California in 2012. NEM
\nis a billing arrangement that allows utility customers to offset some or
\nall of their energy use (up to 1 MW) with selfgenerated renewable energy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe definition sounds the same, except for the cap: 1 megawatt
\nis 1000 kilowatts, so California’s current cap is 100 times the Georgia
\nresidential cap and 10 times the Georgia commercial cap, with
\napparently no distinction between residential and commercial.<\/p>\n\nThe result is this:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The California Net Metering Program is Working:<\/H3>
\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
- \n
\n1 Gigawatt of Solar Installed<\/b> –
\nNEM has empowered more than 100,000 California
\nratepayers to go solar. NEM is necessary to achieve Governor Brown’s
\n12 GW Distributed Generation goal.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\nA state with a high goal for distributed energy generation!
\nWe could do that right here in Georgia.<\/p>\n\n\n
- \n
\nSolar Prices Have Declined – <\/b>
\nIn California, the average cost of a public sector or
\ncommercial solar systems have dropped more than 40% and residential
\npricing has declined by over 25% since January 2007.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\nAs prices go down, demand goes up!<\/p>\n
\n\n
- \n
\nPublic Sector Savings<\/b> – Public agencies will save a total of
\n$2.5 billion in electricity
\ncosts over the 30 years of expected operation of Net Metered systems
\ninstalled under the California Solar Initiative\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/a>
\nAs
\n
\nDr. Sidney Smith has demonstrated<\/a>,
\ncounties or municipalities can even become financially self-sufficient
\nby this means.<\/p>\n\n\n
- \nNo Cost Shift –<\/b> Any cost shift from NEM
\nis largely an artifact of the tiered residential rate design that is
\nmandated by law. There is little or no cost shift from TOU rates or
\nfrom commercial and industrial rates. The previous CPUC cost-benefit
\nanalysis, which used 2008 rates is outdated and showed that the bulk
\nof the costs of net metering are from PG&E’s residential
\ncustomers who had steeply tiered rates in 2008 that no longer exist.
\nEven using the outdated calculations, the estimated rate impact of
\nachieving 2.6 GW of installed NEM systems is only 0.38% of IOU
\nrevenues, or an average rate increase of $0.00064 per kWh. A
\ncomprehensive analysis would reveal there is no cost shift.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\nSo much for
\nGeorgia Power’s disinformation campaign<\/a>.<\/p>\n\nMeanwhile in California, net metering helps the middle class go solar
\nand creates jobs: SEIA estimates 25,000 solar jobs in California.<\/p>\n\nThat plus $10 billion in private investment.
\nImagine if instead of paying Georgia Power monthly for
\n
\nConstruction Work in Progress (CWIP)<\/a>
\nfor the nuclear Plant Vogtle boondoggle
\nthat the same amount went to solar construction.
\nImagine if you could invest in your own solar generation and
\n
\nsell the power to whomever you pleased.<\/a>
\nWe can make that happen in Georgia.<\/p>\n\nAnd it would help if we could raise
\n
\nthis:<\/a><\/p>\n\nAggregate Capacity Limit: 0.2% of utility’s peak demand during previous year\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Meanwhile in California:<\/p>\n
\nNet energy metering in California has a program cap of 5% of
\naggregate customer peak demand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nOnce again California’s limit is far higher than Georgia’s,
\nfor this cap 25 times higher.<\/p>\n\nAnd the main point of
\n
\nSEIA’s report<\/a>
\nis to recommend raising the California cap by changing the way it is
\ncalculated to be more fair.<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/farm8.staticflickr.com\/7217\/7008624297_ec67060df2_o.png\")
<\/a>