Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PSC hears arguments on Arcadia's request to reduce subscription-coordinator bond; no decision made
Summary
The Public Service Commission took under advisement Arcadia Power Inc.'s request to reduce subscription-coordinator bonding for Maryland's community solar program, hearing arguments from staff, the Office of People's Counsel and Arcadia counsel.
The Public Service Commission on April 2 took under advisement a request from Arcadia Power Inc. to modify the bonding requirement for subscription coordinators participating in Maryland’s community solar program.
Arcadia asked the commission to set a flat $100,000 bond for subscription coordinators (SCs) or otherwise provide a near-term remedy because sureties are increasingly requiring cash collateral as Arcadia’s statewide business has grown. Eric Wallace, counsel for Arcadia, said the state’s structure is “unique to Maryland” and argued the current, capacity-scaled bonds are duplicative with subscriber-organization (SO) bonds and are creating market and surety-underwriting difficulty as Arcadia’s portfolio increases.
Staff (Harrison Sher, Lloyd Spivak and Paige Shaw, with Philip Vanderhadden as net-metering working-group leader) told commissioners that the existing, scaled bonding mechanism is intended to protect customers and that SCs and SOs have distinct financial exposure; staff said the bond may be drawn upon to satisfy Maryland court judgments and that premiums are typically a small percentage of subscribed energy value. Staff recommended maintaining the current bond structure, noting the community solar program has grown since bonding was adopted and that the scaled approach was deliberately adopted in 2017.
The Office of People's Counsel (OPC) also opposed Arcadia's immediate relief and recommended that any change be considered comprehensively and applied marketwide; OPC cited consumer complaints filed against Arcadia and urged review of the SC–SO relationship before changing bond rules.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about the legal relationships and liability allocation between SCs and SOs, whether an SO bond can be relied upon to cover SC obligations, and the nature of the risks the bond is intended to protect (examples included insolvency, unauthorized enrollments and data security breaches). Arcadia said some risks will shrink after the transition to net crediting and utility consolidated billing, and urged either a short-term accommodation for Arcadia or a rapid working-group or hearing process to design a market-wide solution.
No vote or formal order was issued; the chair said the commission would take the matter under advisement and consider an interim approach, for example sending the matter to the net-metering working group or scheduling a legislative-style hearing. Several parties signaled they would accept an interim freeze or a narrowly tailored order while the commission explores a broader solution.
