The Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) this week heard back-and-forth testimony regarding Appalachian Power’s (APCo) proposed USD 48.66 minimum bill for its upcoming Shared Solar Program, slated to launch in less than a month to keep a statutory deadline.

The SCC’s public hearing for docket PUR-2025-00028 lasted two days, with representatives from the commission, APCo, the Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA), and clean energy advocacy group Appalachian Voices debating the utility’s proposal as the clock ticks down to July 1, when the statutory deadline for any tariffs, agreements, or other documents are needed to implement the program.

APCo’s upcoming Shared Solar Program will launch with an initial capacity of 50 MW.

With the week’s public hearing over, the commission will deliberate before voting on a decision.

Testimony

CCSA recommended setting the minimum bill for APCo’s Shared Solar Program at USD 0, while Appalachian Voices recommended a minimum bill of USD 8.98.

CCSA’s Eric Wallace said APCo has introduced a complex and inconsistent proposal that doesn’t accurately reflect his organization’s stance that shared solar program benefits outweigh its costs. He said the utility’s methodology is based on a 2020 minimum bill proceeding with Dominion Energy, the other major utility in Virginia, before state legislators made amendments to the program language.

Dominion has its own new minimum bill proceeding in front of the SCC now.

“The complexity of their (APCo) proposal is going to make it difficult for customers to understand and for subscriber organizations to model, to be able to project the viability of their projects,” Wallace said.

Wallace said APCo’s proposals would “render the shared solar program functionally unworkable” in the utility’s territory.

Emma Clancy from Appalachian Voices said her organization believes APCo’s minimum bill calculations are overly complicated and said the SCC should approve either its recommendation or that of CCSA.

“Part of what makes a shared solar program successful is engaging customers and being understandable for customers. I’ve just been thinking today during this conversation that this would be a lot to explain to a customer, and I think that’s one additional reason that weighs in favor of calculating all the benefits, deducting them from the costs, and arriving at a conclusion such as the ones Appalachian Voices and CCSA have recommended to you today,” Clancy said during the June 10 hearing.

Commission staff, though, recommended that the SCC adopt APCo’s minimum bill proposal in an interim capacity with the expectation it’ll be revisited in October during a new minimum bill proceeding.

Another SCC docket, PUR-2024-00161, first submitted by APCo to the SCC in 2024, proposes to close its current Rider Net Metering Service (Rider NMS) to all new customer-generators and introduce a new net metering credit compensation structure designated Rider NMS II.

The deadline for a final order in the net metering case is set for September, which will trigger the launch of a new minimum bill proceeding in October anyways, commission staff said.

“In staff’s view, the company’s minimum bill proposal is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for this proceeding. In simplest terms, it establishes an avenue for a more comprehensive review of the minimum bill later this year,” commission staff said during the hearing.

Representatives from APCo supported the interim adoption of its proposal.

“The company believes that the commission has sufficient information to approve the proposed minimum Bill tariffs and agreement as modified in the company’s rebuttal testimony,” said Andy Flavin, representing the utility.

“However, the company understands the challenges posed by the July 1, 2025, programming implementation date and some of the uncertainty regarding the pending net metering case, and therefore the company does not oppose staff’s recommendation that the commission approve the company’s proposal on an interim basis pending subsequent proceedings to revisit certain issues raised here.”