Policy & Regulation

Alabama Power gets green light to cut payments to third-party energy producers

Critics said the changes — which include new costs to connect to their grid — could stifle solar power development in the state.
Alabama Power gets green light to cut payments to third-party energy producers
Alabama Power’s Plant Barry Unit 8 (Credit: Alabama Power)

by Ralph Chapoco, Alabama Reflector

Alabama Power is paying less for power generated by third-party energy producers and imposing a cost for those companies to connect to its electricity grid.

The rule was approved by the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC) in March; took effect in April and applies to companies that can generate at least 100 kilowatts of electricity.

Alabama Power said in an emailed statement the rates are updated each year, based on fuel costs and inflation, to keep prices as affordable as possible.

The company also said in a separate statement that the new integration cost is part of the monthly energy payment that the company pays to energy providers who are not Alabama Power customers.

Critics allege that the maneuvers are meant to stamp out competition in the market for electricity, especially for solar power providers looking to gain a foothold in the central and southern parts of the state and compete with Alabama Power.

“It is 100% about control,” said Steve Cicala, associate professor of economics at Tufts University, whose work focuses on the economics of regulation, particularly with respect to environmental and energy policy. “They are a business — and they don’t want competition.”

Daniel Tait, executive director for Energy Alabama, an advocacy group that hopes to increase renewable energy generation in the state, said Alabama Power was “trying to protect their monopoly, first and foremost.”

“It doesn’t really matter about the energy source,” he said. “Solar is just the one that is the most economical and the one most likely to challenge that monopoly, so that is why you see the fight on solar.”

The Alabama Public Service Commission said in a statement that the rate adjustments are appropriate based on the figures that Alabama Power provided.

“The cost is driven by the magnitude of the intermittency of certain generation, which requires additional operating reserves to maintain reliability on our system,” Alabama Power said in its email.

But some experts say the intermittency argument is overstated.

“We have gotten really good at predicting solar and wind output,” said Brendan Pierpont, director for electricity modeling for Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and environment think tank. “These are large-scale industries in the U.S. and there are many gigawatts of wind and solar being developed each year.”

Both Energy Alabama and the Southern Renewable Energy Association, another group that promotes the responsible use of alternative energy, sought to challenge the PSC’s ruling, but the PSC officially denied their request in a written order on July 22.

Tait said Energy Alabama has decided not to challenge the order in court and will wait until the following year, should Alabama Power request a rate update or rule change with the PSC.

The Southern Renewable Energy Association said it is still considering its options.

Solar charges

The most recent rule changes limit revenues for larger renewable energy companies with power-producing plants. Those are separate from the households and smaller solar-producing companies that also generate electricity.

“The utilities have been lobbying for this for a long time,” said Gilbert Michaud, assistant professor with the School of Environmental Sustainability at Loyola University Chicago. “Utilities are having more competition in their sandbox, and they are saying, ‘We really don’t want more distributed solar generation because folks will buy less power from us. But we still have to maintain all our power plants and the grid infrastructure.’”

Brendan Pierpont, director for electricity modeling for Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and environment think tank. said the ruling would discourage third parties from investing in renewable energy projects.

“While every solar project has different economic requirements, lowering the price a solar project receives or adding additional fees likely means fewer projects will get built, less investment in communities that would host those projects, few jobs in building those projects, etc,” he wrote in an email. “If the price received by a solar project is lower than the cost of operating Alabama Power’s own power plants, that’s also a missed opportunity for the utility’s electric customers to save money.”

The grid

Alabama Power, the largest utility in the state, has nearly 1.5 million customers and provides electricity to 57% of all customers in Alabama, according to a 2020 report published by the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance.

In February, Alabama Power filed a document with the PSC, the state’s electricity regulator, that proposed cutting the rates they pay for third-party electrical generation, known as a Contract for Purchased Energy (CPE), by up to 50%. In one category, the price decreased from about 7.33 cents per kilowatt hour to about 3.65 cents per kilowatt hour.

Those figures are formulated through a model and the values are estimated. That can be subjective, according to Pierpont of Energy Innovation.

“What they do is estimate low avoided costs, so they don’t have to pay very much,” Pierpont said. “In the meantime, they’re running coal plants and gas plants that cost quite a bit more than the rate they would be paying under this type of contract.”

Throughout the country, Pierpont said, power distribution companies like Alabama Power have been working to reduce the amount they pay homeowners who contribute electricity back to the grid through rooftop solar panels.

In addition to the lower rate payments, Alabama Power introduced a Variable Integration Cost at $0.00193 per kilowatt hour for third-party companies. That would further reduce the revenue that those firms receive for energy purchased by Alabama Power.

Pierpont found a few examples of utility companies imposing an integration cost to connect to the system. One is PacifiCorp, an energy company that operates in several western states, and the second is Duke, which is in the Carolinas.

“This approach seems fairly rare and limited to regions without competitive electricity markets,” Pierpont wrote in an email.

Significant costs

Energy Alabama published a blog post in June alleging that the charges, which it called a tax, would amount to a $250,000 annual charge for an 80-megawatt solar farm based in Montgomery.

The updated rates, along with the integration cost, are separate from the charges that Alabama Power imposes on individual households who install solar to offset their electricity bill.

In 2012, the PSC approved an Alabama Power request to impose a $5 per kW Capacity Reservation Charge (CRE) on customers with solar panels, often known as a rooftop fee. Typically, households that generate about 5 kW on their solar array will pay about $300 annually, or $9,000 over the 30-year expected lifespan of the system.

That charge has since increased to $5.41.

Power companies in other states have been allowed to impose such charges, including Arizona. Michaud, at Loyola University in Chicago, estimates that residents in almost a third of all the states in the country must pay such a fee. Michaud said the fees are clustered “in more conservative states, like the U.S. South.”

This makes it less economical for households to install solar panels for their homes because they make up the upfront fixed cost of the system from the savings generated from their power bills, and lengthens the time needed to recoup the cost of the system.

“It is basically killing your payback period, or at least increasing it,” Michaud said. “I would do this in my class, and a lot of students find, ‘Hey, this increases the payback period from 10 years to 14 years.’ You are having folks paying for a longer time.”

‘Intermittency of certain generation’

For its part, Alabama Power said the rate adjustments to third-party energy providers, also known as the CPE, and newly imposed integration cost, are necessary for maintaining price stability for customers.

“Rate CPE keeps electricity costs stable for customers by ensuring Alabama Power pays a fair price for energy,” the company said in an emailed statement. “This approach, updated annually, protects customers from unexpected price shocks linked to fluctuating energy production costs.”

The company said that the Variable Integration Cost is not a fee and is factored into the calculation that Alabama Power pays third-party producers who are not customers of Alabama Power and who sell all their output to the company.

“The cost is driven by the magnitude of the intermittency of certain generation, like solar, which requires additional operating reserves to maintain reliability on our system,” the company said.

When electricity is in high demand, electricity third-party providers contribute is highly valuable. The power becomes less valuable very late in the evening or very early in the morning, the times when people are asleep, not very active, and have no need for electricity. Smoothing out the supply when the need is uncertain is a tricky question to answer.

Timothy Charles Lieuwen, a professor of engineering at Georgia Tech University, said that over time, the price power distribution companies have been willing to pay to third parties who generate energy has declined.

“It is a really hard question, what is the value of the power they (third party energy providers) are providing,” he said.

Power distribution companies, including vertically integrated ones such as Alabama Power, are less willing to purchase power from other companies in the face of that mounting uncertainty about when customers will need that energy.

The Public Service Commission deferred to Alabama Power in an emailed statement.

“The adjustments to Rate CPE (Contract for Purchased Energy) were found to be in the public interest because they accurately reflected Alabama Power Company’s most current projected avoided cost,” the statement said. “Alabama Power’s projected avoided costs are updated annually. The variable integration charge was approved because it mitigates the cost incurred with integrating the intermittent output of QFs (Qualifying Facilities) onto the Southern Company System.”

The Public Service Commission said in its statement that allegations that it gave Alabama Power more control over the electricity production market were not valid.

“The matters approved in the Commission’s March 5, 2024 Order in Docket U-5213 were designed to accurately establish the projected avoided cost rates for CPE and to allow for the recovery of the cost incurred by Alabama Power in integrating the intermittent output of QFs onto the Southern Company System,” the statement said.

Tait called Alabama Power’s claims about intermittency “absurd.”

“Basically, what Alabama Power is saying when they say something like that is, ‘Our engineers are dumber than everybody else’s engineers and they can’t figure this out,’” Tait said. “Alabama Power’s engineers are just as smart, and just as talented, as everybody else is.”

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: [email protected]. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and X.