If Xcel won’t fund resilience hubs, Minnesota has other options
Solar

If Xcel won’t fund resilience hubs, Minnesota has other options

There is no reason for despair that Xcel Energy has decided to cancel its support of community resiliency projects in Minneapolis. While the peanut gallery believes Xcel’s cancellation has to do with the Public Utilities Commission reducing their recent rate increase, Xcel won’t admit that. Utility monopolies, like Xcel, set the tone and narrative for their corporate objectives. In the meantime, what about the Minneapolis community? Thankfully, there is a solution if the regulators choose the right path forward.

The PUC should allow third-party aggregators and other energy developers to build resiliency projects for the City of Minneapolis. Similar to California, where Community Choice Aggregators work with distribution utilities, it is time for Minnesota to embrace aggregators rather than continue to make the same mistake of putting all of their eggs in one basket – Xcel Energy.

The PUC can only rule based on the record in front of it in a docketed proceeding. There is ample written justification for removing the ban on third-party aggregators in docket #CI-22-600. Given the need for community resilience and demand flexibility, commissioners must choose aggregators over utilities in this proceeding.

Subscribe today to the all-new Factor This! podcast from Renewable Energy World. This podcast is designed specifically for the solar industry and is available wherever you get your podcasts.

In my view, demand and load flexibility go hand in hand with community resilience to quickly restore electricity from a storm. We must enable utility customers to develop their own generation. That rooftop solar power stored in a battery has the potential to sustain the electrical needs of most utility customers for a day or two until the utility restores power. That is why solar and battery installers are key partners for aggregators.

Another docket that the PUC could look for written evidence is Xcel’s resiliency program docket #M-22-170. The PUC approved Xcel’s resiliency program on March 15, requiring annual reports. But the industry, including several solar installers, filed petitions for reconsideration. The PUC rejected these petitions for reconsideration at its May 18 meeting. What concerns anyone who takes time to read these petitions for reconsideration is that the staff at the PUC and Department of Commerce both sided with the utilities.

If the PUC does not want to re-open these dockets in the light of Xcel’s decision to cancel community resiliency projects in Minneapolis, community and policy advocates should note an open docket # CI-17-401, which deals with Performance Based Regulations – developing metrics to incentivize performance of Xcel Energy.

Initial comments are due July 14 in this proceeding. This performance-based regulation metrics docket is relevant to cities like Minneapolis because the PUC is asking questions on topics such as Xcel’s disconnections for nonpayment for residential customers, how many customers are experiencing multiple interruptions, and the amount of demand response that shapes, shifts, and sheds customer loads. This last point of demand response ties to the demand flexibility piece aggregators can provide if the ban on third-party aggregators is removed.

Minnesota PUC has a real opportunity to show that it can stand up to a monopoly like Xcel Energy. There is enough ink spilled in PUC dockets to paint a picture that commissioners should look beyond the utilities to solve its energy transformation challenges, including community resiliency programs. It remains to be seen if the PUC and the Department of Commerce staff realize they have a problem. Actions speak louder than words. The legislators have done their part. Now it’s time for regulators to act. Third-party aggregators must be allowed to help Minnesotans with community resiliency needs.