While Pennsylvania’s government has done much in recent years to promote renewable energy such as solar, there still is room for improvement. This was evident in “Solar bill tabled,” an article in the March 15 edition of the Butler Eagle, concerning negotiations between Dilts Enterprises and Zelienople Borough Council over the proposed installation of a solar photovoltaic (electric generation) system on the roof of Adam Dilts’ business.

At the heart of the matter are the issues of “interconnection” and “net-metering.” “Interconnection” policies primarily regulate the generation capacity of the system and connection to the distribution system, while “net-metering” policies define the physical and monetary aspects of measuring the energy generated by the customer’s system and reimbursement to the customer.

Although Pennsylvania has adopted utility regulations that have simplified these issues for customers and utilities, the regulations apply only to “investor-owned” utilities under the regulation of the state Public Utility Commission.

For a customer within an investor-owned utility, installing a photovoltaic (PV) system is relatively simple. The customer-generator can generate up to 100 percent of its annual energy needs, and the utility buys back the energy at the same price it charges the customer. The regulations prevent the utility from discriminating against customer-generators by prohibiting the utility from charging any special fees that otherwise would not be charged to a non-generating customer.

Unfortunately, Zelienople’s utility is “municipal-owned” and doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the PUC. In this case, Zelienople Borough Council has justified special permitting fees, annual inspection fees, and a lopsided rate agreement, citing “stranded costs” in the borough’s recent $2 million investment in a new substation and contractual obligations to the borough’s electric energy provider.

This negotiation is out of line in terms of Dilts’ proposed PV system and recently enacted federal regulations.

The relative magnitude of the situation is this: Dilts’ proposed PV system is like a snowflake in a blizzard. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration shows that in 2009, the borough sold 29,497 megawatt hours (MWh

) of energy, generating revenues of $3.526 million. In comparison, a system such as the one being proposed by Dilts would likely produce fewer than 4 MWh per year. At 0.014 percent of the borough’s annual energy sales, this is hardly a threat to the bottom line.In addition to being a relatively small issue, the borough’s utility is also under the regulation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which has enacted regulations to simplify and limit these types of customer-utility interconnections. In 2005, in an effort to address new issues arising from the interconnection of PV and other small renewable energy systems, the commission amended its regulations under the Federal Power Act to provide a simplified interconnection agreement that is fair to both the customer-generator and the utility. Within FERC Order 2006, it is stated that, “All inspections must be conducted by the company (utility) at its own expense” and the application fee for interconnection is limited to $100.While the commission is clear about regulations regarding “interconnection,” it does not attempt to set “net-metering” policy in these situations, meaning the utility is not required to pay the customer the same rate as the utility charges in return. This is unfortunate in cases like this, where the utility disregards the simple and fair option of adopting policy that already is available to 85 percent of the state’s utility customers. How much time and effort was spent by the Zelienople Borough Council to draft a policy that will recoup approximately $200 per year in avoided energy costs?I realize that Zelienople Borough Council is looking to the future beyond this one case, but that just brings up another larger question: Why enact regulations that only will serve to discourage the development of a new business within the borough?Hopefully, Pennsylvania’s renewable energy policies will continue to improve to the level of neighboring states such as West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, where net-metering laws apply to all utilities regardless of ownership status so that local municipalities can avoid situations like this. In the meantime, it would be nice to see municipal-owned utilities take a more progressive view of new renewable energy technologies such as solar.William Rittelmann, P.E., of Butler Township, has worked as an engineering consultant for the U.S. Department of Energy Building America program for the last 12 years and served as a judge for the 2007 Solar Decathlon in Washington, D.C.