Apparently, NSPI is making the claim that “ordinary” rate payers are subsidizing the costs associated with allowing net-metering customers to feed excess solar energy, should they produce any, back onto the existing grid infrastructure.  I’ve even seen a comment from NSPI President, Peter Gregg, in which he suggests that this burden is particularly punitive to ‘…low income customers.’  While this sort of rhetoric may seem heartwarming on its face, it should be seen for the shameless pandering that it is.

To be absolutely clear, the infrastructure required to accommodate any net-metered flow of electricity on NSPI’s grid is pre-existing, already in place. Part of a grid-tied installation includes replacement of a standard utility meter with a bi-directional meter, at the customer’s expense. In the run of a year, any excess production from a grid-tied installation gets credited to the customer’s account and “rolls forward,” should successive credits accrue.  By no means is this account-crediting process the same thing as “selling” energy back to NSPI; there is, in fact, no such provision in the net-metering contract.

For the lion’s share of net-metering customers, any credits produced in the run of a year are more than offset by the energy they consume from the utility, during the times when their solar installation cannot satisfy their on-site demand.  In fact, the sizing of a customer’s grid-tied solar installation is strictly controlled by the utility, such that a customer, under normal circumstances, cannot produce more electricity than they normally would consume from the utility in the run of a year.

So, how is it that “ordinary” rate-payers are subsidizing net-metering customers?  Exactly how are ordinary net-metering customers, like myself and about 4000 others in this province, unfairly benefitting from having made the substantial investment to reduce our carbon footprint? On the subject of carbon footprints, I notice that NSPI makes no mention of the fact that it is the utility, not the net-metering customers, which gets to claim the carbon credits produced by the energy that our systems offset.

In my personal case, over the last ten years, my solar array has offset over 65 tonnes of carbon emissions. These emissions have a current value of $50/tonne such that, in effect, I’ve already ‘contributed’ $3255 worth of carbon credits to NSPI. Yet, I’m considered to be freeloading off the utility and the “ordinary ratepayers”.  

I became an early adopter of solar technology for the very reason that my only utility option was (is) such an egregious source of energy-driven carbon emissions. While NSPI has made modest improvements in this regard, over the last decade, it still lags behind many other jurisdictions and is now showing renewed resistance to retiring its coal-fired infrastructure.

You know, the more I think about it, the more ill I feel.  In one fell swoop, by making this application to the UARB, NSPI has already struck a crippling blow to what was a burgeoning green industry. Since the announcement of this matter two days ago, solar installation businesses around the province have had jobs canceled outright, both prospective and in-progress projects, some of them of substantial size.

As I’m sure you are aware, Mr. Mahody, the damage has largely been done but could be somewhat reversed with swift action.  Unless this application is immediately withdrawn or rejected, it could be up to 18 months before this matter is decided. The solar industry of this province cannot ‘ride it out’ that long; the industry will be decimated, just in time for NSPI to finally start investing in its own solar infrastructure.