Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Power board weighs raising solar cap and battery requirements as EDAM reshapes buyback economics
Summary
Staff told the board that the utility is already about 400 kW over its 4 MW solar-export limit and proposed exploring a higher cap and battery requirements for large installs. Members also heard that EDAM-era day-ahead prices and negative solar-hour pricing complicate the current buyback structure.
At its monthly meeting, the Power Board heard from staff member Rick (staff member) about pressures on the utility’s solar policy and potential responses as the extended day‑ahead market (EDAM) changes wholesale pricing.
Rick said the city’s existing solar-export limit allows up to 4,000 kilowatts on the system and the utility is already roughly 400 kW above that threshold. “One of the things that we need to address is the overall limit,” he said, noting that installations such as an apartment complex with more than 200 rooftop systems last year created logistical challenges for staff and contractors.
Board members were asked to consider options including raising the cap (Rick floated a preliminary idea of 6,000 kW) and requiring batteries for larger exports to the grid. Rick explained the rationale: larger systems that export significant energy benefit customers most by offsetting retail consumption, which in many cases requires batteries. “If they offset their own usage, it will be higher than [the buyback rate], and the only way they really can do that is to have a battery system,” Rick said.
Staff also described how EDAM-era pricing changes the economics of a simple flat buyback. Rick said the utility’s current buyback — about $65 per megawatt-hour based on its rate study — is substantially higher than prevailing market examples he cited during the meeting. “This was from April 29th. I could buy it for $8 instead of 65,” he said, stressing that negative or very low prices during abundant solar hours can make a flat buyback costly for the utility.
Because EDAM has produced periods of negative prices during mid-day “solar hours,” Rick proposed studying a time‑of‑use buyback that would pay more when the system needs energy and less during oversupplied solar hours. He cautioned that the utility is not yet technically set up to implement such a program and suggested staff would return with more detailed options this summer (likely July or August) to seek board feedback.
No formal vote or policy change occurred at the meeting; Rick framed the discussion as preparatory and asked board members for initial thoughts. The board will revisit the matter after staff develops options and clarifies EDAM impacts on the utility’s wholesale purchases and PCA exposure.
