Inletkeeper Supports Raising Net Metering Cap

As the Regulatory Commission of Alaska decides whether utilities should be required to connect more member-owned solar installations through net metering, Inletkeeper is highlighting the value of letting members invest in their own energy to conserve Cook Inlet gas, hedge against its rising price, and lower their carbon impact. We recently commented on the RCA’s pending decision on raising the statewide net metering cap from 1.5% to 20% of a utility’s average annual demand, and many of our members and supporters did, too. Thank you to everyone supporting this important decision! 

Net metering will continue to need advocacy in 2025. The RCA’s statutory timeline requires a decision by September 2026, but we hope they’ll move much faster to ensure net metering continues to expand. 

You can read Inletkeeper’s comments supporting a safe and fair maximum of net metering here. All comments, as well as the RCA’s orders and other documents related to the decision, are here. A few comments worth reading from our fellow advocates:

•  Renewable Energy Alaska Project
• The Alaska Public Interest Research Group
• The Alaska Center
• The Susitna River Coalition
• Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition
• Erin McKittrick (a HEA board member, but commenting here as an individual).  

Our utilities wrote in as well. Homer Electric Association supports raising the cap “under conditions that it not impact reliability and stability of the electric delivery system or result in increased cross-subsidization across the membership.” Chugach Electric favors continuing ad-hoc expansion instead of raising the cap, as well as a change from net metering to “net billing” that would credit in-home use of solar power at a lower rate. Instead of increasing the cap, Matanuska Electric favors new rates for net metering members, which it is in the process of developing, according to its comment. 

The utility comments are full of warnings about problems that increased net metering “may” cause or issues that “have the potential to” arise. But if the RCA is going to restrict members’ ability to make beneficial investments in energy conservation, they should be justified not with theoretical speculation, but by sound technical analysis and an informed judgment that shifted or added costs from net metering are significant. Some utilities have started quantifying their concerns. In a July filing, MEA estimated that existing net metering “shifts cost responsibility by an estimated $0.331 million from net metered participants to all members on the system.” But they don’t show their math or state what they consider as a shifted cost. If their accounting is similar to examples they recently gave the RCA, it’s inflated. MEA’s comments regarded the grid energy that net-metering members do not purchase from them as an unfair loss. This is like a grocery store complaining you’ve stolen the eggs you don’t buy after you get your own chicken instead. MEA’s example also counts as a loss, the passed-through cost of gas that a net metering member avoids paying – even though the member’s solar kilowatt-hours didn’t need gas to generate and so didn’t incur this cost. This is like the grocery saying you’re also responsible for the cost of refrigerating those eggs you didn’t buy. The public, as well as regulators, need to see how utilities account for the costs and benefits of net metering. 

MEA is apparently upset that its members are able to invest in an alternative to the monopoly service they provide and would like the state to make that choice harder. On the other hand, the Renewable Energy Alaska Project cites the potential of net metering as a benefit to “expand the ability of individual consumers to compete with their monopoly service provider,” putting some small degree of competitive pressure on utilities. The best incentive a utility can create to meet your needs with grid power is to keep rates low. 

In any case, MEA and other local utilities aren’t for-profit businesses.  They’re co-ops that exist for the benefit of their members. If it benefits members to conserve gas-fired power by investing in solar panels, their goal should be to make that benefit possible in a safe and fair way for as many households as possible.