In a filing with the Public Utility Commission on Southern California Edison’s request to spend $1 billion on solar PV, the state’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates opposed approval arguing that a broad feed-in tariff would be superior.
The DRA argued that
“If and when an SCE feed-in tariff for small generators is expanded to Solar PV (Advice 2148-E-A), this application should be dismissed. A feed-in tariff would provide a superior alternative to the SCE SPVP program in reaching the targeted warehouse rooftops. A feed-in tariff would enhance competition and significantly lower ratepayer risk due to the pay-for-performance nature of the tariff.”
SCE’s request has been widely criticised by others as well, including Vote Solar and the Solar Alliance. In their joint filing the two sometimes critics of feed-in tariffs suggested that a “targeted feed-in tariff” would be superior to SCE’s bid.
Similarly Californians for Renewable Energy argued that a feed-in tariff would open up the market to more not less competition.