TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)


R. Michael Martin
 

Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:
Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.


Mark Witte
 

Michael,

Wonderful idea. 

Are you aware of what other groups are working on the NEM law issue? All groups interested in an updated and improved NEM law should probably work together.  Maybe quantity could prevail against the quality of the professional energy industry lobbyists.

Mark

On Monday, October 4, 2021, 11:16:52 AM CDT, R. Michael Martin <mm@...> wrote:


Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:
Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.


R. Michael Martin
 

I don’t know others working on this but would expect TXSES, TX Solar Power Assn, et al would be the obvious leaders...

On Oct 5, 2021, at 17:10, Mark Witte via groups.io <witte.m@...> wrote:

Michael,

Wonderful idea. 

Are you aware of what other groups are working on the NEM law issue? All groups interested in an updated and improved NEM law should probably work together.  Maybe quantity could prevail against the quality of the professional energy industry lobbyists.

Mark
On Monday, October 4, 2021, 11:16:52 AM CDT, R. Michael Martin <mm@...> wrote:


Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:
Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.



Jim Duncan
 

NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).

Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...
On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:

Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:
Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.


 

As Jim said, 501(c)(3) groups are not allowed to lobby legislative bodies and similar governmental bodies. The IRS rules are here:

The penalties for violations include individual taxes on the managers of the organization, as well as financial penalties for the organization itself and loss of tax-free status.

Bill


On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, at 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:

NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).

Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...
On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:

Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.


R. Michael Martin
 

I understand and agree… My use of the term lobby as it relates to us was intended to mean informal and mainly educating members for personal level lobbying/advocacy.


On Oct 6, 2021, at 21:59, Bill Byrom via groups.io <bill@...> wrote:


As Jim said, 501(c)(3) groups are not allowed to lobby legislative bodies and similar governmental bodies. The IRS rules are here:

The penalties for violations include individual taxes on the managers of the organization, as well as financial penalties for the organization itself and loss of tax-free status.

Bill


On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, at 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:

NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).

Jim Duncan
Solar Acres Farm
817.917.0527
solarguy2004@...
On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:47, Fred Anders via groups.io <fjanders1@...> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 07:09 AM, <w_h_3@...> wrote:

Called Rhythm..their 1:1 plan has electricity price that is sadly around 6 cents more per kWh than their normal plans, which I think is in ballpark of GM or even more.  They do offer buyback in their regular plans but of only the energy charge, not the delivery charge.  I don’t know if Green Mountain even offers that.
If your system offsets 100% or more of your annual usage (i.e. your exported kWhs exceed your imported kWhs), then it doesn't matter what 1:1 ¢/kWh rate they charge since you'll never pay it. (Even if you only offset most -- but not all -- of your consumption, a high-rate 1:1 plan often still works out to be the best option.)

GME's [unadvertised] "Renewable Rewards Essential" plan is similar to Rhythm's "Texas Breeze" plans in that it charges energy+delivery in, and only credits for energy out. But the GME plan doesn't roll over credits month to month.


Dan Lepinski, P.E.
 

No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations. One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia. At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them. (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English. Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request. Don't send your first draft. Maybe not even your second. Or third. Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day. Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar. See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it. When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it. If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so. It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate. Perhaps several months. To that, we have time to make this an effective effort. It's two years until the next regular session. Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing. All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan

On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).

Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@gmail.com

On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...

Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)


Mark Witte
 

Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>






 

1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>






Mark Witte
 

1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>






Philip Timmons
 

What do you have in mind?   Writing a "model" law / legislation (like ALEC does) and doing "education" based on that?   Has anyone done a "model" yet that we can review?

ALEC does that, and the local and state .govs tend to copy it. 

I would not mind doing or updating that -- if that is what you are thinking?  

Phil Timmons
817-689-7573
philiptimmons@... 

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 12:06:51 PM CDT, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:


1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>






thewineprince
 

Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








Mark Witte
 

Phillip,

Yes, that's our best chance to try and make progress with the legislature.  A reasonable and well-written law or legislation could be proposed, then everyone involved would be advocating / educating legislators on the same proposal.  I'm unaware of, but extremely doubtful, that any sort of model has been created. I wouldn't even know where to look to determine if something like that exists.  

You're correct about state and local governments using ALEC-proposed laws. They frequently pass those ALEC-proposed laws verbatim. ALEC and the API have arguably done more to corrupt the political system in America than any other entities, and it probably isn't even close. But who knows for sure? With the massive amount of dark money sloshing around politics in America, it's impossible to find out.

Mark  

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 02:01:02 PM CDT, thewineprince via groups.io <thewineprince@...> wrote:


Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








Philip Timmons
 

Super.  Yes, I can get that started, or support anyone else who like to do lead-dog.  

Anyone want to start a list of features we would like?  

Try to start them with maybe "bullet point" type 1 sentence concepts, and then we (or you) can build a supporting paragraph or so for each.  For good communication (per my US Army days) we try for the "3B(s)"  Be Brief, Be Bright, Be Over. :)  

I guess send them back here to the group, and I will start consolidating?  or you can send to me directly at email, below.

Phil Timmons
817-689-7573
philiptimmons@...



On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:16:50 PM CDT, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:


Phillip,

Yes, that's our best chance to try and make progress with the legislature.  A reasonable and well-written law or legislation could be proposed, then everyone involved would be advocating / educating legislators on the same proposal.  I'm unaware of, but extremely doubtful, that any sort of model has been created. I wouldn't even know where to look to determine if something like that exists.  

You're correct about state and local governments using ALEC-proposed laws. They frequently pass those ALEC-proposed laws verbatim. ALEC and the API have arguably done more to corrupt the political system in America than any other entities, and it probably isn't even close. But who knows for sure? With the massive amount of dark money sloshing around politics in America, it's impossible to find out.

Mark  

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 02:01:02 PM CDT, thewineprince via groups.io <thewineprince@...> wrote:


Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








Philip Timmons
 


38 states have Net Metering Laws  (of course, Not Texas)

We can maybe look at what is good and bad in those existing.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:16:50 PM CDT, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:


Phillip,

Yes, that's our best chance to try and make progress with the legislature.  A reasonable and well-written law or legislation could be proposed, then everyone involved would be advocating / educating legislators on the same proposal.  I'm unaware of, but extremely doubtful, that any sort of model has been created. I wouldn't even know where to look to determine if something like that exists.  

You're correct about state and local governments using ALEC-proposed laws. They frequently pass those ALEC-proposed laws verbatim. ALEC and the API have arguably done more to corrupt the political system in America than any other entities, and it probably isn't even close. But who knows for sure? With the massive amount of dark money sloshing around politics in America, it's impossible to find out.

Mark  

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 02:01:02 PM CDT, thewineprince via groups.io <thewineprince@...> wrote:


Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








Mellen West
 

I agree with Dan that a message from an individual carries more weight than the type of pre- scripted emails that Mark describes.  Most of these senders will urge readers to craft their own personal comments.   Most useful to me is they provide useful info including details like House Bill this or Senate Bill that which saves me time.

 

Time permitting, I like to pick up the phone and have a cordial, non-confrontational conversation with elected official or a staffer. 

 

My Two Cents.

Mellen

 

From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mark Witte
Sent: Thursday, 7 October, 2021 9:09 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)

 

Thank you, Dan. 

 

Good plan; I like it. 

 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

 

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

 

Mark  

 

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:

 

 

No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>





Mark Witte
 

Phil,

Thank you for volunteering to start this process!  I'm perfectly content to support you, and for you to be the lead-dog on this initiative.

Since this is a large initiative with statewide impacts, I'd like to know what support for this initiative there might be within NTREG, TXSES, Texas Solar Power Association (TSPA), Sierra Club and other like-minded organizations. Please review the membership page of TSPA. They have a significant number of solar energy companies among their members. Those companies could provide much needed political influence, since they add to the economic activity of the state and employ constituents of the legislators.  One or more of those organizations may also be working on a similar initiative, and there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. 

I strongly recommend (so strongly I'll volunteer to do it) that we contact Molly Rooke and Rita Beving for assistance. Rita has a great deal of experience lobbying city councils and the legislature. I've been on her mailing list for years. She does an exemplary job of providing updates and sending emails and letters that folks on her mailing list can forward to city council members, legislators, etc.  We could also reach out to Tom "Smitty" Smith for assistance, even though he has shifted his focus to EVs. Tom has more experience working with Texas legislators than anyone else I know. 

Thank you,

Mark 

     



On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:41:35 PM CDT, Philip Timmons via groups.io <philiptimmons@...> wrote:



38 states have Net Metering Laws  (of course, Not Texas)

We can maybe look at what is good and bad in those existing.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:16:50 PM CDT, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:


Phillip,

Yes, that's our best chance to try and make progress with the legislature.  A reasonable and well-written law or legislation could be proposed, then everyone involved would be advocating / educating legislators on the same proposal.  I'm unaware of, but extremely doubtful, that any sort of model has been created. I wouldn't even know where to look to determine if something like that exists.  

You're correct about state and local governments using ALEC-proposed laws. They frequently pass those ALEC-proposed laws verbatim. ALEC and the API have arguably done more to corrupt the political system in America than any other entities, and it probably isn't even close. But who knows for sure? With the massive amount of dark money sloshing around politics in America, it's impossible to find out.

Mark  

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 02:01:02 PM CDT, thewineprince via groups.io <thewineprince@...> wrote:


Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








short2001
 

From my personal experience fighting a tollway project, showing up in person, meeting with each representative, and taking the time to follow them to meetings helps also. 

-------- Original message --------
From: Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Date: 10/7/21 5:37 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "main@NTREG.groups.io" <main@ntreg.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)

Phil,

Thank you for volunteering to start this process!  I'm perfectly content to support you, and for you to be the lead-dog on this initiative.

Since this is a large initiative with statewide impacts, I'd like to know what support for this initiative there might be within NTREG, TXSES, Texas Solar Power Association (TSPA), Sierra Club and other like-minded organizations. Please review the membership page of TSPA. They have a significant number of solar energy companies among their members. Those companies could provide much needed political influence, since they add to the economic activity of the state and employ constituents of the legislators.  One or more of those organizations may also be working on a similar initiative, and there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. 

I strongly recommend (so strongly I'll volunteer to do it) that we contact Molly Rooke and Rita Beving for assistance. Rita has a great deal of experience lobbying city councils and the legislature. I've been on her mailing list for years. She does an exemplary job of providing updates and sending emails and letters that folks on her mailing list can forward to city council members, legislators, etc.  We could also reach out to Tom "Smitty" Smith for assistance, even though he has shifted his focus to EVs. Tom has more experience working with Texas legislators than anyone else I know. 

Thank you,

Mark 

     



On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:41:35 PM CDT, Philip Timmons via groups.io <philiptimmons@...> wrote:



38 states have Net Metering Laws  (of course, Not Texas)

We can maybe look at what is good and bad in those existing.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 04:16:50 PM CDT, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:


Phillip,

Yes, that's our best chance to try and make progress with the legislature.  A reasonable and well-written law or legislation could be proposed, then everyone involved would be advocating / educating legislators on the same proposal.  I'm unaware of, but extremely doubtful, that any sort of model has been created. I wouldn't even know where to look to determine if something like that exists.  

You're correct about state and local governments using ALEC-proposed laws. They frequently pass those ALEC-proposed laws verbatim. ALEC and the API have arguably done more to corrupt the political system in America than any other entities, and it probably isn't even close. But who knows for sure? With the massive amount of dark money sloshing around politics in America, it's impossible to find out.

Mark  

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 02:01:02 PM CDT, thewineprince via groups.io <thewineprince@...> wrote:


Someone like 60 minutes needs to do a week long series on the fossil fuels industry, it’s century long taxpayer subsidies, the billions of customer dollars spent on lobbying and campaign finance used to keep those subsidies flowing from the taxpayer and Congressional pockets to their own. 

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM, Mark Witte <witte.m@...> wrote:
1) At this time, I think we should just focus on determining if someone is willing to spearhead this initiative. If not, the naming convention is irrelevant. 

2) I agree. The huge bribes the oil & gas industry and energy utilities have paid to legislators over the years... uh, I mean "Campaign Contributions", have really paid off for those industries.  Most Texas legislators are loathe to do anything that might even incrementally reduce those industry revenues and profits.  Perhaps our best chance for success is to overwhelm the legislators with communications in support of this cause, which I'll readily admit won't be easy. 

Mark   

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 09:51:00 AM CDT, James Orenstein <jorenstein@...> wrote:


1) The term NEM as generally understood does not technically apply in areas like Oncor using dual register smart meters: There is no way to physically implement the equivalent of the old analog meters where the meter could "spin backwards". The situation in ERCOT deregulated areas is further complicated by the division between Retail Electric Providers and Transmission & Distribution Utilities and resulting billing practices. I recommend using terms like "buy-back plans" or "bill credit plans".

2) People should understand that they should be careful about not raising expectations for what they will most likely end up getting. The trend now is for "value of solar" calculations which end up with the bill credit rate being lower than that charged for consumption. For example see Austin Electric, CPS (San Antonio), the State of MN, & CA NEM 2.0 & now 3.0. While it could be argued back in 2017 when Oncor put forward their ridiculous proposal for a new DG rate plan/fee that they had an insignificant amount of DG to deal with, I've heard several utilities recently say that they are seeing exponential rates of increase in DG solar installations.

For example, just a quick search for "CA NEM 3.0" found the following, and keep in mind that CA has a legislative mandate to sustainably grow rooftop solar (which TX does not):

"California’s NEM 3.0 Must Grow Rooftop Solar Sustainably" 7/27/21

"The current NEM policy (NEM 2.0) is not sustainable because it overcompensates NEM customers, creating a cost burden to non-NEM customers. Money to pay for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels come from those customers who don’t have rooftop solar. To the extent these payments are higher than the value of solar electricity, non-NEM customers pay more expensive energy bills and NEM customers get over-subsidized."

Regards,

James Orenstein


From: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Witte <witte.m@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:08 AM
To: main@NTREG.groups.io <main@NTREG.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [NTREG] TX Solar Net Energy Metering (NEM)
 
Thank you, Dan. 

Good plan; I like it. 

All homeowners and businesses with installed solar, plus employees of solar installation companies would seem to be highly motivated groups of potential participants. As to other potential participants, I don't know. Certainly organizations like Sierra Club, Citizens Climate Lobby, etc., would seem to be obvious places to find people willing to participate. But the effort would need to be coordinated with the leadership in those organizations.  

I frequently receive emails from groups requesting participation with their efforts to email, call and/or write letters to national representatives. Typically, the email, letter or phone script is written out and provided. I'm unsure if representatives receiving a bunch of essentially form emails or letters, even if they are well written, carries as much weight as more personal, but perhaps less well written, emails and letters. Something to consider as this initiative is progressed. 

So, who will spearhead and coordinate this crucially important initiative for NTREG?!

Mark  

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:43:11 PM CDT, Dan Lepinski, P.E. <dan@...> wrote:


No need for a non-profit to be involved.

Citizens themselves can write letters, and can be more effective than organizations.  One of NTREG's past presenters was Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia.  At that meeting, he said as few as six letters on pending legislation has caused him to re-think his position.

While e-mail is the easy way, Rafael also said a printed and signed letter in an ordinary stamped envelope and sent by US Postal Service has more impact not only with him, but with other legislators as well.

Identify several key legislators who are involved with committees that impact energy legislation, and write to them.  (Not yet!)

Keep letters to one page, succinct, and in plain English.  Remember, the objective is to educate a lawmaker who likely isn't informed on anything related to solar energy and simultaneously convey your request.  Don't send your first draft.  Maybe not even your second.  Or third.  Finish it, then put it aside and read it again the next day.  Have a friend read it - preferably someone who isn't familiar with solar.  See if it makes sense to them without you explaining it.  When they understand what you're saying, and agree it's sufficiently persuasive .. THEN mail it.  If you're a constituent in the legislator's district, say so.  It helps.

Wait until legislators are done with the special sessions and have had an opportunity to recuperate.  Perhaps several months.  To that, we have time to make this an effective effort.  It's two years until the next regular session.  Use the intervening period to get work underway and refine your approach.

We have "Groups.IO" for our own internal communication and organizing.  All it takes is one individual to get the ball rolling and spearhead the effort.


Dan


On 10/6/21 9:17 PM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> NTREG and most others are 501(c)(3) non-profits. If they want to lobby they will need to be a 501(c)(4).
>
> Jim Duncan Solar Acres Farm 817.917.0527 solarguy2004@...
>
> On 10/4/2021 11:16 AM, R. Michael Martin wrote:
>> Our group and other RE and environmental groups in Texas must lobby our legislators to establish a fair and consistent NEM aka bill credit law for consumer protection and fairness.  These are already in place in bigger solar states (in residential and commercial, behind the meter) like CA, NV, AZ...
>>
>> Then we can stop this thread topic ;-)
>>
>>








fred.wu@...
 

Dan, in case the group decides to partner with any existing efforts/campaigns around net metering in Texas, I thought Environment Texas might be a group to check out. It looks like they are already engaged in lobbying around this issue. Not an endorsement (and I'm not affiliated) but I thought could be helpful in impacting some change at the legislative/regulatory level. There is at least a sort of petition it looks like everyone could sign to indicate their support of fair net metering policies for customers. Also, a more comprehensive write up/report at the link which goes into some detail on the politics of the coalition against net metering.

https://environmenttexas.org/feature/ame/blocking-rooftop-solar

Fred