In Nevada, one of many states where taxpayers have been subsidizing solar projects for years, the Public Utility Commission of Nevada (PUC) voted unanimously on December 23, 2015, to increase net metering rates over the next four years.  Two days before the vote, SolarCity declared that it would cease operations in the state if the subsidies were repealed.  However, the PUC’s decision did not mean the fight was completely over for Solar City and other providers.

 The “net metering” program in Nevada requires all homeowners to subsidize more than 17,000 customers with solar panels at a cost of $16 million every year.  Companies like SolarCity install rooftop systems on one home at a minimum cost of $10,000, and the homeowner pays no upfront cost.  Therefore, homeowners who do not have solar panels are paying out of their pockets for homeowners who do have or want solar panels installed on their homes.  Net metering also reimburses residential energy customers for excess power generated by their rooftop panels. 

On February 3, 2016, the day after the PUC voted unanimously to change the phase-in period to 12 years instead of four, the solar industry decided the best way to overturn the commission’s action was to take on Nevada’s constitution.  On February 3, 2016, two initiatives to amend the constitution on Election Day in November 2016 were submitted under “The Energy Choice Initiative.”  The first amendment would allow customers to choose their energy providers by 2023.  The second and key amendment, backed by SolarCity, would have had the impact of restoring the net-metering rules and solar panel prices that were in effect before the PUC’s rate changes.  

Solar City poured $2 million into the Bring Back Solar Alliance, which “staged protests outside of PUC headquarters and dispatched an army of signature-gatherers with petitions aimed at reversing the rate hike through the ballot.”  Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) lent his support even before the initiatives were set in stone:   “They haven't been written or approved - but conceptually they're both great.” 

On August 4, 2016, the seven-member Nevada Supreme Court unanimously struck down the ballot measure.  The justices “found that the petition used to get signatures for the referendum provided was ‘inaccurate,’ ‘misleading’ and ‘argumentative.’”  This ruling prevented the initiative from being placed on the ballot in November and dealt another huge blow to Solar City and solar consumers. 

Yet the fight continues to flare up, as solar advocates are now looking to the longer route of winning over state lawmakers.  Governor Brian Sandoval requested that a bill be introduced for the 2017 legislative session to “grandfather” existing customers back into their old rates.  However, that would come at the same (or or a higher) cost to taxpayers that existed prior to the PUC’s decision.

The fundamental problem with solar subsidies is that they only benefit the solar industry and consumers that feed off of other taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money.  Solar power accounted for only 0.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. in 2014.  It’s time for the sun to set on giving billions of dollars in taxpayer funding to solar projects.  If the solar industry is going to survive and thrive, it should do so in a competitive, fair, open marketplace, where prices would be set by supply and demand, not subsidies and tax dollars.