The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2024

while valid, was hardly urgent. 20 The parity argument also failed to acknowledge the value of power that was placed back onto the grid through the solar customer’s excess production. 21 Although the adoption of this law received much negative attention nationally, it has yet to have an impact on custom ers. 22 That is because for the law to be implemented, a utility must submit a tariff to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) to analyze whether non-solar customers are somehow subsidiz ing solar customers. The one time a utility underwent this process, the OCC determined the data used was outdated and did not prove subsidization was occurring. 23 No utility has made a second attempt at establishing fees pursuant to this law. Having this law on the books has made a more confusing market for potential rooftop solar custom ers in Oklahoma. Utilities can look to themselves to be leaders in the ever-changing world of power generation. But where the utilities do not lead the way to find solutions, states are known to step in. In states where renewable energy is flourishing, the developments came, in part, from strong mandates on the power industry to incorporate renewables like solar. 24 Distributed generation, such as solar, decreases the need for fuel to travel long distances to power plants on the grid, which is expensive to maintain and can be more vulnerable to extreme weather and cyberattacks. 25 However, even if more Oklahomans took advantage of these benefits by installing solar systems, not all utilities are required OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED SOLAR IN OKLAHOMA

to purchase the excess generation produced by the systems from those customers. This is one risk factor in installing a solar system that is mostly out of the consumer’s control. As mentioned, there are three types of electric utilities in the state, all with different requirements – some easier than others – to change tariffs and rates. Each utility also has differ ent net metering rules and rates. Rate consistency is very important for a solar customer since systems are often built using some sort of financ ing product. If the rates change before the rooftop solar system is paid off, it changes the planned pay back time for that system. Utilities have an opportunity to get creative to ensure they can deliver enough power to the grid at prices that are fair for all customers amid chang ing consumer demands. The fact is, rates have been changing and will continue to change – sometimes for utility’s economic concerns and some times due to outside forces. One such outside force is the influx of electric vehicles into the market. Electric vehicle sales are now 16% of U.S. light-duty auto sales. 26 Rapid growth in EV sales necessitates new considerations for the grid and utility business models. This is because EVs place new, additional load on the grid and provide new income streams for utilities. But EVs could also eventually shift peak demand times since most charge their vehicles at night. Currently, the demand for electricity is lower at night while most of us are asleep, but if suddenly a large number of us were charging our cars at night, EVs could lead to a shift in that peak. Electric car sales exceeded 10 mil lion in 2022, which equated to 14% of all new cars sold according to the Global Electric Vehicle Outlook Report

OBSTACLES TO INCREASED SOLAR IN OKLAHOMA A number of uncertainties in law and policy serve as obstacles to more solar in the state. Across the country, consumers are learning that their utilities are changing tar iffs and fees to mitigate the effects on their bottom lines caused by an increase in rooftop solar deploy ment. 15 Some of these rate and tariff changes come as a surprise to cus tomers and negatively impact the established pro forma of an installed system. In Oklahoma, a 2014 legislative action seemingly aimed at maintaining parity between distributed generation (solar) customers and regular (non-solar) customers resulted in a bill allow ing utilities to levy a usage fee on new solar customers who remained connected to the grid. 16 In an attempt to address the pre sumption that solar customers did not pay their share of grid main tenance and infrastructure costs, the law purports to protect non- solar customers from subsidizing solar customers’ grid expenses. 17 This parity argument assumed that as solar energy became more popular, eventually, the exclusive burden of paying for grid main tenance would fall to non-solar customers since those with solar might be able to provide enough of their own energy to eliminate their electric bills. 18 However, at the time of the bill’s passage, one utility official indicated that only 200 to 400 of the 800,000 customers had installed solar or wind. 19 (The author notes the age of the law and articles referenced here, but there has been no meaningful legal change). Therefore, the argument purportedly in favor of protecting non-solar customers from (even tually) footing the bill of grid fees,

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

46 | MAY 2024

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL