Commentary

Nonsolar users bear burden of net metering

THE SOLAR ENERGY BOOM in Massachusetts has been exciting and there is little debate over whether further expansion is important. We are strong supporters of solar energy, but only at the right price for the state’s businesses, municipalities, and residents, including low-income customers. It is they — not utilities — who are shouldering the high cost of electricity produced by solar power. Share Tweet 29 Comments As the conversation about how to finance the future of solar energy in Massachusetts continues, it is important to set the record straight about what maintaining the status quo — or raising the net metering cap — means for utility customers statewide, as well as what it means for solar developers. CONTINUE READING BELOW ▼ Net metering – one of the state’s solar incentives – rewards solar energy owners or developers by paying them for the power they produce at the same rate they would pay if these owners and developers were consuming electricity from the grid. This rate includes payment for benefits and services that solar developments do not provide. In addition, when solar sites produce more than they consume, they don’t have to pay for services such as the use of the wires and poles operated and maintained by the utility and financed by utility customers. For large solar projects, these reimbursements far exceed the value they bring to the electric system. As a result, Massachusetts pays more per kilowatt-hour of solar energy than anywhere else in the nation, and about twice as much as neighboring New England states. This leaves utility customers who do not have solar with a grossly inequitable share of the burden of Massachusetts’ overpriced solar energy. Given this structure and steep subsidies, it is no surprise that developers are feverishly pushing for an increase of the net-metering cap. The Net Metering Task Force, on which we served, estimated that nonsolar customers will pay nearly $4 billion between now and 2020 if current policies remain in place. That is unfair and unsustainable. We support the creation of new policies that continue to promote the expansion of solar energy in Massachusetts without forcing nonsolar customers to subsidize millions of dollars in profits for developers. In the meantime, we believe that raising the cap is not needed to ensure the ongoing development of solar power installations. This is evidenced by the applications — for systems of various sizes — that National Grid continues to receive even after meeting its cap. The cap does not apply to residential projects or those that produce electricity to be used exclusively on site. In addition, net metering is not the only incentive for solar. Let’s not rush to strap customers with paying for additional subsidies for the solar power industry before we shine some sunlight on the real costs and benefits of solar for everyone in the state. Bob Rio is senior vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts. Amy Rabinowitz is deputy general counsel for National Grid. Camilo Serna is vice president of strategic planning and policy for Eversource.

Hazards tied to medical records rush

Subsidies given for computerizing, but no reporting required when errors cause harm

By Christopher Rowland | GLOBE STAFF JULY 20, 2014

One job that might be appropriate for governments is the creation of standards.

Bay State's big selloff

re: Bay State's big selloff by Richard Gillispie Boston Globe Op-Ed 7/27/7

Richard Gillespie has found an interesting crease in the social fabric through which to slip in a rationale for privatization. While corporations can jettison their responsibilities to their workers and retirees, the public sector depends on a more ponderous political process.

From a capitalist perspective there is a lot of value in our communities. The wealth is spread evenly, the difference in wages and benefits between our lowest paid state workers and our highest paid public officials is no where near the differences seen in the private sector between workers' and stockholders' earnings; an enticing amount of fat poised to move up the food chain and into executives/stockholders coffers. Yet, this even distribution is what gives our communities their strength. Our public workers can become part of the fabric of our society with the economic power to contribute to their communities.

Despite our federal government's mission of making the world safe for privatization, there is nothing democratic or free or even American in this value. Corporations are not citizens, we are the citizens. Selling off our communities so that we can re-apply for our jobs at lower pay and worse benefits is not the solution.

Tim McKenna
12 Parley Vale
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
tim@sitebuilt.net
617 524 0938(h)
857 498 2574(m)

next target: the prevailing wage law

next target: the prevailing wage law Next target: the prevailing wage law - The Boston Globe

Perhaps we should just take eveybody's job away, let them get real hungry then bring them into a big arena. The field could be separated into two sections, 13% of the people could go in the union section, the other 87% in the other. Crumbs could be thrown down from the skyboxes with more crumbs going to the union section. People could then compete against each other by fighting for the crumbs thrown down from the skyboxes. The people cry out for more crumbs. The jumbotron responds: "Reduce the union section if you want more crumbs for yourself". We could then force the winners to have to give some of their crumbs to the losers. The jumbotron would declare that was because of taxes: "reduce taxes keep more of your crumbs". The people are outraged. Allow them to vote on the way out of the arena. Maybe you could sell chances on a seat in the skyboxes too.

Ah efficiency and discipline, the core values of privatization. Free market efficiency might get the job done for $25/hr or even $15/hr but what does that get society? Do we have strong communities where people can own a home, send their kids to college, save for retirement?