The solar industry in Indiana put up a valiant fight against Senate Bill (SB) 309, the bill introduced under false pretenses by Sen. Brandt Hershman that will end net-metering prematurely in the state.
In the end, however, the lying side won.
Gov. Eric Holcomb signed SB 309 into law yesterday after it sat on his desk for nearly a month. In his signing statement, Holcomb expressed his support for the solar industry, even as his pen signed a law that could devastate the rooftop solar industry in the state.
“I support solar as an important part of Indiana’s comprehensive energy mix,” Holcomb said. “I understand the concerns some have expressed, but this legislation ensures those who currently have interests in small solar operations will not be affected for decades.”
Decades – or three years, whichever comes first. Under the law, utilities can halt net-metering incentives as soon as they make up 1% of a utility’s peak summer load. For some utilities like Vectren, which serves the southwestern part of the state, net-metering could hit that cap within three years.
Laura Arnold, president of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance, said she was disappointed with the governor’s decision and had hoped the governor would send the issue to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to do a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to determine the true effect of net-metering on non-solar customers.
“There is a desperate need for real Indiana based data and information concerning the impact of net metering,” Arnold wrote in a letter to the governor before he signed the bill. “As has been done in numerous other states, Indiana needs a cost-benefit study performed by the IURC. There was considerable discussion among state legislators about the need for such a study to provide state lawmakers with real tangible data to then evaluate and make appropriate energy policy decisions.”
Supporters of the bill suggested that the IURC did not want to do such a study, and that the results of such an IURC study could be worse than the provisions in SB 309. Arnold said she spoke to the IURC chairman and discovered the argument was a complete fabrication.
“During my recent personal discussion with IURC Chairman Jim Atterholt, I was told that the IURC did not convey to state legislators they were not interested or unwilling to do such a study,” Arnold said. “Rather, the IURC wants specific direction on what they should examine and how they should perform such a study of net metering.”
“The notion that the IURC would make proposed changes itself via an order or administrative rulemaking without due process is not plausible,” she added.
Misrepresentations – and in some cases outright lies – plagued SB 309 from the time it was introduced in January. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Hershman, had come under fire from Senate colleagues for his deceptive testimony before the Committee on Utilities, where he said that without SB 309, everyone making use of solar net-metering would lose the benefit once utilities reached the current 1% cap.
A close examination of the previous law, however, proves no such provision exists under the current law, which makes SB 309’s harsh curtailment of the program unnecessary.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Hopefully Connecticut does the same, paying rooftop solar >18 cents per kwh is ridiculous. We have a solar docket coming up later in the year, so we will see where it goes.
Tried several times to share this manipulation of public trust on Facebook, but each of your share links resulted in an error message. Get on it. This nonsense needs to be shared and votes used to crush lying morons that are supposed to work for us.
Hello Mr. Marlow,
I just tried the Facebook share and it worked. Can you send us a screen shot so that we can share it with our IT team? We definitely want you to be able to share this on Facebook.
Send to roselund@pv-magazine.com. Thank you.
– Christian Roselund
Rich…So if I invest 10,000 dollars or more in a rooftop solar and I’m feeding energy back into the system, why shouldn’t I get as much money as the electric company? Oh, and btw, you only get your bill reduced to zero in Indiana, so even if I add 20 KW’s back into the electrical grid over my bill, I get no benefit financially, in fact, I help the electric company make money. The electric companies are TERRIFIED that they’ll eventually have to pay solar owners that money back and this law prohibits that. Oh and they’re also terrified that they’ll lose BILLIONS in revenue if everyone goes solar.
I don’t have any issue with this. why should you receive the same rate as the power company? do you maintain the infrastructurethat delivers the power to homes? do you pay the salaries of the employees that maintain those power line, the equipment and supplies that are use? I don’t think that you do! and if you produce that much power that consistently puts power out on the grid, the you should be regulated just like a power company. i don’t have any issue with personal power. I would like to have that someday myself but i don’t think the power company owes you anything… just my 2 cents.