By Hannah Grover
The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission clarified how community solar bill credits are calculated this week following concerns expressed by three advocacy groups.
The commission finalized details regarding bill credits, tariffs and forms in November following several delays. These details were essential for developers to know before seeking subscribers because they need to be able to tell customers about potential benefits.
After the November order, two investor-owned utilities asked the commission to reconsider parts of the decision and advocacy groups requested clarification about bill credit calculations.
The PRC partially granted two of the requests on Thursday and denied the third on a 2-0 vote with one member abstaining.
“This has proven to be a complicated issue, and I just wanted to express appreciation, frankly, for these motions for rehearing because it gives us another opportunity to clarify things that I thought might have been clear, but maybe they weren’t,” Commission Chairman Pat O’Connell said.
Bill credits
The advocacy groups that requested the clarification include the Coalition for Community Solar Access, the Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico and New Energy Economy. The three groups were concerned the final order resulted in a different methodology being used to calculate bill credits.
“By lowering the residential bill credit and changing the economics of already awarded (community solar) projects, the Commission makes it harder for the (community solar) program to achieve its low-income service goals and provide meaningful benefits to those subscribers,” the advocacy groups state.
But the commissioners say the methodology has not changed. Instead, they say some of the elements involved in the methodology change with time and that means the bill credits may be different.
Who pays for costs associated with community solar?
Southwestern Public Service Company requested that the PRC allow them to collect certain costs associated with the program using an administrative costs rider. Some examples of costs the utility would like to collect through the rider include technology upgrades and legal fees.
Aguilera said he read some of the rehearing requests arguments as suggesting that the utilities might not be able to recover certain costs such as startup costs.
“I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think that should be the case for any prudent investments,” he said. “The utilities should definitely be recovering their costs. So I think the issue really is how those costs are being recovered.”
Commissioner Greg Nibert summarized the issue as being whether the community solar subscribers or developers will pay those costs or if the costs will be passed on to all of the utility’s customers.
“SPS made what I thought was a good point when they explained that the purpose of the subsidization allowed in the Community Solar Act was not to finance or provide financial benefit to unregulated developers,” Aguilera said. “That resonates with me.”
The commission has not yet decided who will pay the costs the utilities incur to get the community solar program off the ground.
Avoided costs
Proponents of community solar say that it will ultimately save utilities money because they will not have to procure or generate as much electricity. This will create something known as avoided costs.
The utilities are required to track these avoided costs, but El Paso Electric requested that they not be required to track certain types of avoided costs.
The commission wasn’t sympathetic to El Paso Electric’s arguments.
“I think that it’s necessary to track those avoided costs, because it is determining what (are) the benefit of these projects,” Aguilera said.
Nibert addresses past work for Hinkle Law Firm
Nibert, who is new to the commission, chose to abstain from voting. He said he did not have sufficient knowledge of the case to cast a vote.
“I’m hopeful to be able to get up to speed quickly so this doesn’t happen frequently,” Nibert said.
He further disclosed that he was a member of the Hinkle Law Firm up until 10 days ago. The Hinkle Law Firm represents one of the utilities that had requested a rehearing.
Nibert said he was not involved in any cases that are pending before the PRC and doesn’t feel that his past work for Hinkle Law Firm will require him to recuse himself from the case.
He said that his relationship with the lawyer representing the utility was “very slight.”
“I want everyone to know I’ve not worked on any matters that came before the commission,” he said.
I jave bought and paid for my solar panels and should not be charged for other peoples electric, or any ectra charges for this project.