On August 2, 2006, the temperature in Massachusetts reached 99 degrees with 65% humidity. New Englanders turned on air conditioners and fans like never before, setting an all-time record for electricity use on the regional grid.
Historically, New England has had some of the highest retail electricity costs in the United States. But about two years later, around 2008-2010, the region began investing in rooftop solar panels.Because of the devices’ falling costs, aggressive state policy mandates and rising regional electricity prices, many homes have installed them on their roofs. The decision made all those years ago has benefited people greatly.
According to a new report from the Acadia Center, during the heat wave that hit New England between June 28 and July 4, distributed solar projects contributed more than six gigawatts of electricity, saving taxpayers about $130 million to $149 million collectively.On July 2 alone, the report found that solar arrays saved between $39 million and $54 million, and that solar power contributed more energy to the grid than the region’s nuclear fleet that afternoon.
The Acadia Center’s analysis found that rooftop solar in the region was, at times, fueling about 25% of total electricity demand. “The grid absorbs it,” said Jamie Dickerson, senior climate and clean energy programs at the Acadia Center, meaning “other resources don’t have to burn during those production hours,” saving other taxpayers money because they don’t have to buy those other fuel sources.“Between 2pm and 7pm on that hottest day on July 2, distributed solar actually contributed more to the fuel mix than the region’s nuclear fleet,” he said.
“Basically, we saw that between 28% and 43% of daily costs were avoided through distributed solar energy in the region,” he added.Rooftop-mounted solar, sometimes called “behind the meter” generation, provides power to offset the energy use of individual homes and businesses. But surplus electricity is sent to the local grid, which helps meet demand from nearby buildings. He added: “It is distributed solar energy, and it is close to where the load is, as you know, the actual electricity consumption, and this means that it effectively reduces the peak demand that appears on the regional grid.”Regional grid operator ISO-New England said in a statement this summer that installed solar could reduce demand by more than 1,700 megawatts during normal weather conditions. Increased rooftop solar generation has shifted peak summer electricity demand hours from the hottest part of the day around 4 p.m. to early evening, according to ISO-NE.According to Dickerson, this is a clear economic case for the benefits of solar energy.
He said: “If we had not invested in these resources, we would have been more vulnerable to fuel sources that are more volatile and more vulnerable to large price fluctuations during peak periods.”He added that the benefits of solar energy are not limited to heat waves like the ones New England experienced this month. In fact, the Acadia Center found that solar energy last year saved between $1.26 billion and $1.37 billion.
“These are resources that we have invested in that are there and will come on the grid during these types of hotter summers and El Niño summers,” Dickerson said. “We will see savings throughout the year, but especially in the summer with the warmer temperatures we are experiencing.
“Other energy efficiency improvements in the area, such as better insulation, weatherization and more efficient appliances, also helped taxpayers save on energy costs during the heat wave, Dickerson said.
The report estimates that these negative resources saved taxpayers between $94 million and $97 million during the week. This includes an estimated savings of $29 million on July 2.Dickerson said these savings are difficult to show because they require calculating what costs would be incurred without solar power. But he expressed hope that the report could highlight the impact of solar energy and debunk the narrative that clean energy drives up prices. Especially as the Trump administration withdraws its support for clean energy, state and local leaders must consider the future of those investments.“We hope this helps make the case that these are not only good for all of our public emissions reduction policies, but they are also good policies for economic energy affordability,” Dickerson said.
