Originally published on SolarWakeUp.
By Frank Andorka
What Happened: Utility Dive has an excellent piece describing the 88% difference in two VOS studies, one in Montana and one in Maryland.
¤ The Maryland VOS study, prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, values solar highly. The Montana VOS study, prepared by the state’s largest utility, values solar less highly. Can anyone spot the difference?
¤ While the Utility Dive analysis goes far deeper into the specifics, it’s no surprise that these reports turned out the way they did.
Is the image of the sun setting on a utility pole too heavy handed? I worry it’s a little heavy handed.
SolarWakeup’s View: Let’s get this out of the way first: Go read the Utility Dive explanation of two value-of-solar studies – one in Montana, the other in Maryland – which come to two deeply different conclusions about how solar should be valued when it comes to net metering and other compensation structures. It is excellent, and it is detailed. I could not do a better job myself.
But I want to look at one factor that UD slides over that may be the single-biggest determining factor in why, according to the two studies, solar is 88% more valuable in Maryland than in Montana. That factor is who paid for the study.
In Maryland, the study was prepared by the state’s Public Service Commission, a supposedly independent body whose job it is to balance the needs of ratepayers and utilities to come to an equitable balance between those two seemingly divergent interests. As such, it has no particular agenda to push; it can afford to look at as many facts as possible – and take as many stakeholder views into account as possible – before rendering its decision.
Montana’s study, on the other hand, was paid for by the state’s largest utility, in whose interest it is to value solar less highly because of its own vested interest in keeping solar penetration limited. After all, the more solar penetration there is, the fewer people are dependent on the utility to supply electricity. That means a smaller customer base, which means fewer profits, which means unhappy investors. When there’s a study being done by one of the party’s involved in a dispute, it can’t surprise anyone when the study comes out in that party’s favor.
I don’t mean to imply either study is perfect, nor am I suggesting that who paid for the study was the sole factor in outcome. But I am suggesting it plays a significant role — and is something activists on the solar side should account for whenever one of these VOS studies comes out against us.
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Former Tesla Battery Expert Leading Lyten Into New Lithium-Sulfur Battery Era — Podcast:
I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it! We just don't like paywalls, and so we've decided to ditch ours. Unfortunately, the media business is still a tough, cut-throat business with tiny margins. It's a never-ending Olympic challenge to stay above water or even perhaps — gasp — grow. So ...
