This commentary is by Richard Butz of Bristol, a board member of Vermont Interfaith Power and Light and the Addison County Interfaith Climate Action Network.
As a board member of Vermont Interfaith Power and Light and Addison County Interfaith Climate Action Network, I have been deeply involved in enrolling faith communities in the Bristol Community Solar Project.
By purchasing shares in the solar array, owners can support local clean energy and offset their electric energy costs on their utility bills with net metering credits.
However, I am finding that faith communities are having a hard time deciding to make long-term investments in solar power, due in large part to state policies that are making it harder, not easier, to make the economics of these projects make sense.
So far, my church in South Burlington is the only one to have committed, with several still considering the investment. We need supportive policies for community solar projects to make it easier for faith communities and others who want to practice what we preach about caring for God’s creation, our Earth.
We encouraged participation in the solar project at our church by emphasizing our obligation, as people of faith, to care for God’s creation. One key way for us to fulfill this obligation is to do our part to address climate change by lowering our carbon footprint through the purchase of shares in the Bristol project.
A secondary consideration was the dollar benefit to the church over time. At the time of our greatest need, Vermont has drastically reduced solar incentives in the form of net metering “adders,” originally designed to shorten the “payback period” for solar investments, in the form of net metering credits on the church’s electric bill. Return of our investment will take more than 12 years at current electric rates.
Several of our church members pointed this out and questioned the wisdom of investing church funds in the project. At a time when climate science and laws like the Global Warming Solutions Act are requiring progress, our present practices are making it harder, not easier, to site renewable energy.
In response, we asked congregants to contribute the $15,000 cost to the church directly so the funds would not come out of the church budget. Our church members responded magnificently. In this way, the “payback” to the church will begin immediately when the project goes on line.
But not every faith community can do what we have done or is willing to approach their members for this “ask.”
I understand that the Public Utilities Commission and Legislature plan to emphasize “energy at scale” (see S.119), because the cost/benefit ratio of large projects is more favorable to all ratepayers than that of small net-metered projects. And, using this form of incentives does not enable targeting low-income Vermonters for assistance. Thus, only those who can afford to spend actually get to save — a different kind of inequity. So what to do?
Large projects, divorced from the community, can cause NIMBY (not in my backyard) reactions in those communities. Local solar, controlled by local people, can enable buy-in, or local support for solar projects. And we need social buy-in if we are ever to make real carbon-reduction progress.
In my view, direct incentives from the state — whether they are for solar generation, electric cars, or weatherization — are going to be necessary to tip the scales toward real carbon reductions. Many Vermonters, particularly low-income folks, won’t be able to participate at all without support.
Unfortunately, current state policies make the siting of community solar projects very challenging. The fact that Bristol had both the ideal site in a capped landfill and a fantastic local energy committee that was invested in helping the project meet the needs of the community were key to its success. Unfortunately, the combination of those two key ingredients is often the exception rather than the rule in our state. The difficulty of building new community solar has major equity implications, because it is often the only way for people who don’t own their own homes to access renewable energy.
So perhaps a better path than our current net metered incentives is to change our way of encouraging solar projects. We should be providing direct subsidies through dealers and installers to reduce the actual cost of solar panels, just as we do for electric cars right now. Low-income Vermonters could be allowed to qualify for incentives on a sliding scale based on income. In the case of community solar projects, the incentives could still be accessed by those who, for any one of a number of reasons, cannot install photovoltaics on their homes.
If such a plan were enacted, both S.119 and direct subsidies could work side-by-side.
Climate change is affecting us now and the time to act is right now. The stimulus funds pouring into our state from Washington make this the time to change the way we provide renewables incentives so all can benefit, directly or indirectly, today.
