Harder, better, faster, stronger. That’s what one hundred and two state representatives and a few dozen mayors told the legislature recently in twin letters on solar energy policy. One can hardly blame them: municipalities are beginning to fear long-stalled projects may soon falter, solar businesses are laying off workers, service providers are seeking ways to save on utilities at a time when the dominant government policy seems to be austerity, and legislators’ phones are ringing off the hook with angry constituents.
That anger is warranted.
For legislators on the 6-member conference committee examining solar policy to feel some frustration at this process is also warranted. No agent of government wants government to remain in gridlock, particularly not here in Massachusetts where leaders have sought a bipartisanship less ugly than the national scene.
Some conferees are true leaders on clean energy and climate change, and we hope they will continue pushing for a strong solar policy. Ultimately it falls upon the legislature to devise clean energy legislation that meets the Commonwealth’s needs, and to do that they would need to step outside the bounds of solar proposals traded in great haste and under the shadow of substantial misinformation last November. It is within legislators’ power to do so, and it’s clearly the direction on clean energy the public is demanding. If they do otherwise, we are committed to return to fight for a just and equitable energy policy.
Utility companies are seeking to cut the primary consumer benefit for solar, net metering, on the basis that ratepayers should be protected. This transpires at a time when even the grid operator is recognizing that solar puts a dent in energy demand by easing needs at times of peak power usage. Draconian changes like those proposed last fall could eliminate hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in our state, adding to layoffs in Massachusetts’ 15,000 job solar industry which have already begun.
Utilities are also seeking to preserve a cap on solar generation that prevents projects over a certain size from selling energy back to the grid. In doing so, they would allow only small rooftop projects to proceed, while arguing the problem is that only those with well-oriented rooftops are benefitting from solar. That would knock out projects on public schools, community solar gardens that grant solar access to renters, low-income housing projects, and even big business projects from the mix.
Many advocates would be quite happy to see changes in the state’s solar programs. An empirical and well-vetted study of solar’s benefits and costs could adjust future compensation rates, incentivizing clean energy appropriately while also getting a real figure for the needs of the grid. Doing so might actually allow us to modernize our grid faster, and coupled with gradual reductions to the SREC, or solar subsidy, program, Massachusetts could grow clean energy and reduce ratepayer expenses.
Clean energy like solar saves money on fuel and transmission, keeps power local, creates jobs. Massachusetts can also take pride in the existing steps it has taken to expand access to solar energy, with forays into low-income and shared solar that rival the nation. A report on Low-Income Solar release by Vote Solar prominently features Massachusetts as a beacon of clean energy policy. Boston City Council president Michelle Wu extolled the benefits of solar to service providers, multi-family dwellings and public schools on a recent press call.
Yet we have to go further, expanding shared solar programs and targeting policies to advance low-income solar access. There is no way to negotiate that goal with attacks on net metering. Fundamentally, cutting solar net metering disempowers communities. That’s the real goal of stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry—maintaining control. Just look down to Connecticut, where Eversource has fought to paint community shared solar as dangerous, bad for ratepayers. It’s a ridiculous idea, but as we’ve seen elsewhere in society, silly ideas backed by incredible wealth can carry far and do incredible harm.
This is not a progressive versus conservative debate. Many conservatives in our state—including elected officials—are strongly pro-solar, with the right to self-generate power, clean energy entrepreneurship and ideas of independence and autonomy resonating strongly with the base. What is shocking to some Massachusetts voters and completely unsurprising to others, is that many conservative Democrats and centrist Republicans like Governor Baker have been shown to be pro-utility rather than fiscally conservative or pro-consumer.
Massachusetts can act to empower communities and reject neoliberal policies of “speak justice, do harm.” True energy justice means giving autonomy for communities to chart their own energy future while repairing the harm of historic burdens of pollution, racism and economic divide. This means accelerating clean energy in places like Fall River, Worcester, Holyoke and Dorchester, at the site of coal and nuclear plants facing retirement and in dense urban neighborhoods.
It means choosing community over corporations that extract, pollute and divide, and holding new industries, even clean energy industries, accountable to the communities they serve.
The state legislature has a lot of work to do.
To learn more about solar net metering, check out this video interview with Joel.
