OPD Board Discusses Changes To Net Metering And Security Deposit Policies

By VERNON ROBISON

Moapa Valley Progress

The Overton Power District (OPD) Board of Directors held an open discussion on two proposed policy revisions during a meeting held Tuesday, Feb. 13 in Mesquite. Neither proposal was presented as a formal action item. OPD General Manager Mendis Cooper, who presented the items to the board, explained that he wanted to have feedback from board members on the items before creating a final draft that would be presented to ratepayers in a series of upcoming public hearings.

The first item dealt with the district’s handling of customers who generate their own power through rooftop solar arrays. Cooper explained that the current policy was created back in the end of 2012.
“When it was initiated, we realized that, the way our power contracts were set up at the time, we couldn’t really purchase any large scale solar,” Cooper said. “So the board at that time decided that it would like to further the implementation of solar by providing policies that would help customers put solar on their homes.”

During the years since, the environment in the solar power market has changed and several problems with the initial policy had also been identified, Cooper said. “So we are suggesting some changes that reflect those things,” he added.

Firstly, the wording of the existing policy allows for customers to zero out, not only their energy costs, but also their base rate service charge with credits from excess power generated from their systems.
“We shouldn’t be doing that,” Cooper said. “We are ok with washing out their kilowatt hour usage, but they still need to be responsible for their customer service charge.”

Secondly, the existing policy pays customers for any surplus power left on their account at the end of each year, up to the amount of $150. The new policy would propose to eliminate those cash payments, Cooper said.
“We will leave it so that they can bank their excess from month to month, but we would zero off any balance at the end of the year,” Cooper said. “No payments would be made to them.”

Board member Doug Waite asked whether the board might ever benefit from buying that surplus solar power if enough customers ever had solar panels to make it substantial.
“Not really,” Cooper responded. “Even if we added a lot of those customers, our peak power usage actually occurs in the late afternoon/early evening, just as the solar units start to wind down for the day. So it doesn’t even shave our peak usage.”

The third proposed change to the policy was to reduce a rebate offered by the district for customers to install rooftop solar systems. Currently that rebate is at $2,500. The change proposes to reduce that to $1,000.
“Our goal would be to eventually have no rebate at all,” Cooper said. “Hopefully at this point solar can provide for itself and there is no need for a rebate. So this would just be an incremental step in reaching that goal.”

Board members suggested that language be included in the new policy that specified the intention to phase out the rebate altogether; and possibly even give a specific timeframe for that phaseout.

The final change would be for the customers to foot the cost of equipment needed for the net metering arrangement. Cooper explained that under current policy the district bears the expense of installing the two meters needed to monitor both input and output on homes with a solar generating system.
“We have decided that we should no longer do that,” Cooper said. “We will provide an estimate for the work that is required for them to set it up for net metering. Then they have to pay that in order to get hooked up.”

Cooper said that the cost for that work and equipment is usually $500-$750. The district could look at taking that amount out of the rebate, if that was the customers wish, he said.
Board members expressed support for the changes.
“I like that it does away with general customers having to subsidize solar customers,” said Bunkerville board member Bob Bunker.

“I agree,” said Logandale board member Jack Nelson. “If the solar arrays can’t be self-sustaining, then all of the other customers shouldn’t have to pay for it.”

Cooper confirmed that, with the current policy, general OPD customers have been subsidizing the solar systems heavily over the past five years. “When you add up all the meters and the costs, it is a pretty big subsidy,” he said.

The other matter for board discussion dealt with a proposed change to district policy on security deposits. The OPD has recently gained the capability to set up pre-paid billing for power service. Rather than billing at the end of each month for power use, customers have the option to be set up to make pre-payments in any increment they wish.

Cooper explained that this service is geared partly towards rental properties where sometimes tenants move out suddenly leaving a balance on the power bill unpaid. Before service can be restored the balance must be paid by the landlord or property manager.

The idea of the policy had been presented several months ago in a board meeting and originally had proposed that every rental property in the district be converted to a prepaid metering arrangement. Cooper said that he was surprised to receive comments from property owners and managers who were opposed to the proposal.
“Their comments were directed towards the fact that they felt they were being forced into prepaid, even though they have always been good customers,” Cooper said. “They felt like it was a little bit heavy-handed.”

In response, Cooper had reworked the proposal to make it less of a requirement and, instead, offer an incentive to go to prepaid plans.

Renters setting up power service would have a choice. The first option is to have traditional billing by making a security deposit of either a $250 minimum or up to a maximum of two times the average monthly bill of the rental property. As an alternative, they could pay a reduced deposit of only $100 if they set up a prepaid plan.

The proposal also allows for landlords to require a tenant to pay the $250 deposit along with the prepaid plan. It also allows the OPD to require the same thing if the renter has a poor credit history or has had service disconnected for non-payment three times in a year’s period.

Similar plans are proposed by the policy for property owners and businesses. Current policy would remain in effect for homeowners that are in good standing and have good credit histories, where no security deposit would be required. But if the customer has had service disconnected three times within a twelve month period the proposal would require the same security deposit and/or prepaid arrangment as renters.

Mesquite board member Mike Young asked why a security deposit would be charged at all if the customer opted for a prepaid plan. Cooper responded that this was an area where he had experienced a change of mind after some consideration.
“Let’s say it is in the heat of summer and the customer is a mom or dad with young family, or an elderly person who can’t get out,” Cooper said. “If they run short of money and can’t pay and we can’t turn off their monthly power bill. So I thought it would be a good idea that we have a hundred dollars as a buffer so that we could keep them on live until they could get their account back in to the right frame.”