The 2018 Community Power State Scorecard

The 2018 Community Power State Scorecard

Date: 2 Mar 2018 | posted in: Energy, Energy Self Reliant States | 0 Facebooktwitterredditmail

Each year, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance provides a score for each state’s energy policies based on how they help or hinder local clean energy action. In 2018, 21 states had a failing grade, 17 were mediocre, 11 had a passing grade, and just 2 excelled at enabling residents to act individually and collectively to take charge of their energy future.

Explanations of each policy are linked the first time they appear. The scoring methodology is on our Community Power Map site.

The Top 5 States

Massachusetts has a Community Power score of 30 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Massachusetts is also one of just two states to set a state building energy code with a standard “stretch” code for communities to go further than the state standard. The state only lacks a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects, residential PACE, and aggregate net metering.

New York has a Community Power score of 29 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. The state only lacks a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects and a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

California has a Community Power score of 27 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. California is one of a few states to provide a standard offer contract for distributed energy across the state. The state only lags in requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and in lacking a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

Illinois has a Community Power score of 26 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Illinois doesn’t allow aggregate net metering or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

New Jersey has a Community Power score of 25 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering (plus aggregate net metering) and above average interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. New Jersey doesn’t allow shared/community renewable energy or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

The Bottom 5 States

Tennessee has a Community Power score of 1 out of 36. The state allows communities to set their own building energy codes, but lacks nearly every other possible policy for supporting local energy action. It is one of just a few states to prohibit net metering, has significant barriers to grid interconnection, has no state renewable standard for distributed resources, doesn’t enable shared/community renewable energy, and doesn’t allow communities to choose their energy supplier. It also lacks a standard contract for distributed energy resources and doesn’t allow communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy.

Alabama has a Community Power score of 2 out of 36. The state allows communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

South Dakota has a Community Power score of 3 out of 36. The state allows communities to set their own building energy codes and has average grid interconnection rules, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

Nebraska has a Community Power score of 4 out of 36. The state has net metering, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including simplified grid interconnection policies, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

Texas has a Community Power score of 5 out of 36. The state allows communities to provide energy financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

The Scores by State

Alabama has a Community Power score of 2 out of 36. The state allows communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

Alaska has a Community Power score of 6 out of 36. Although the state has a net metering policy and allows communities to set building energy codes, it lacks a wide range of policies to support distributed renewable energy and local authority.

Arizona has a Community Power score of 11 out of 36. The state offers net metering and requires utilities’ renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, and also allows cities to set building energy codes. It doesn’t allow communities to provide financing with property assessed clean energy, to pick their energy suppliers, or encourage shared/community renewables. The state’s grid interconnection policies also hinder distributed energy resources like rooftop solar.

Arkansas has a Community Power score of 8 out of 36. Although the state has a net metering policy that allows customers to reduce energy costs against all their meters and allows communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, Arkansas doesn’t allow communities to set stretch building energy codes or pick energy suppliers. The state doesn’t require utilities to develop distributed renewable energy resources, has poor interconnection policies that hinder connection of distributed energy resources like solar, and has no policy supporting shared or community renewable energy projects.

California has a Community Power score of 27 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. California is one of a few states to provide a standard offer contract for distributed energy across the state. The state only lags in requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and in lacking a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

Colorado has a Community Power score of 21 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering (and aggregate net metering) and above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, a shared/community renewable energy law, and it allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Colorado also allows cities to set building energy codes. Colorado lacks a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Connecticut has a Community Power score of 15 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, and rules allowing communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. The state lacks local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

The District of Columbia has a Community Power score of 22 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, rules allowing communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, and a shared renewables or community solar program. Because it’s both city and “state,” the District also scores highly for setting its own building energy code. The District lacks community choice energy that would enable the city government to opt out of service from the incumbent investor-owned utility, PEPCO, as well as lacking a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Delaware has a Community Power score of 13 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation and above average grid interconnection rules, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. The state lacks local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, to use property tax bills to finance clean energy, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, shared renewable energy (like community solar), or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Florida has a Community Power score of 10 out of 36. The state has just two policies encouraging local power, including net metering and allowing communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. However, it’s grid interconnection rules are below average and the state lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, shared renewable energy (like community solar) or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Georgia has a Community Power score of 9 out of 36. The state has just two policies encouraging local power, including net metering and allowing communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. However, it’s grid interconnection rules are abysmal and the state lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, shared renewable energy (like community solar) or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Hawaii has a Community Power score of 19 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average grid interconnection rules, a shared/community renewable energy law, a standard purchase contract for renewables, and it allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Hawaii lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, or local flexibility in setting building energy codes.

Idaho has a Community Power score of 5 out of 36. The state offers net metering with meter aggregation, but little else. It doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and it lacks policies allowing communities to provide financing with property assessed clean energy, to pick their energy suppliers, or encourage shared/community renewables. It also lacks local flexibility in setting building energy codes or a standard purchase contract for renewables. Idaho also has abysmal interconnection policies for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Illinois has a Community Power score of 26 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Illinois doesn’t allow aggregate net metering or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

Indiana has a Community Power score of 5 out of 36. The state offers net metering and above average interconnection policies, but little else. It doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and it lacks policies allowing communities to provide financing with property assessed clean energy, to pick their energy suppliers, or encourage shared/community renewables. The state also lacks local flexibility in setting building energy codes or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Iowa has a Community Power score of 7 out of 36. The state offers net metering and has above average interconnection policies, but little else. It doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and it lacks policies allowing communities to provide financing with property assessed clean energy, to pick their energy suppliers, or encourage shared/community renewables. It also lacks local flexibility in setting building energy codes or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Kansas has a Community Power score of 6 out of 36. The state offers net metering and provides local flexibility in setting building energy codes, but little else. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources and it lacks policies allowing communities to provide energy financing with property assessed clean energy, to pick their energy suppliers, or encourage shared/community renewables. Kansas also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables and has abysmal interconnection policies for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Kentucky has a Community Power score of 8 out of 36. The state offers net metering and allows communities to provide energy financing for commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but little else. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, or laws letting cities pick their energy suppliers, or encouraging shared/community renewables. Kentucky also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables, local flexibility in setting building energy codes, and has below average interconnection policies for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Louisiana has a Community Power score of 7 out of 36. The state offers net metering and allows communities to provide energy financing for commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but little else. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, or laws letting cities pick their energy suppliers, or encouraging shared/community renewables. Louisiana also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables, local flexibility in setting building energy codes, and has abysmal interconnection policies for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Maine has a Community Power score of 12 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average grid interconnection rules, a shared renewables program, and local flexibility in setting building energy codes. Maine lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, or rules allowing communities to provide energy financing with property assessed clean energy.

Maryland has a Community Power score of 18 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, a shared renewables (community solar) program, and rules allowing communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Maryland lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, and local flexibility in setting building energy codes.

Massachusetts has a Community Power score of 30 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Massachusetts is also one of just two states to set a state building energy code with a standard “stretch” code for communities to go further than the state standard. The state only lacks a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects, residential PACE, and aggregate net metering.

Michigan has a Community Power score of 14 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, and it allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Michigan lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, a shared renewables program, or local flexibility in setting building energy codes.

Minnesota has a Community Power score of 18 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering with meter aggregation, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, a shared renewables (community solar) program, and it allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Minnesota lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, or local flexibility in setting building energy codes. It has average interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Mississippi has a Community Power score of 7 out of 36. The state offers net metering and has above average interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar, but that’s it. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, or laws letting cities pick their energy suppliers, or rules allowing shared/community renewables. Mississippi also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables and local flexibility to offer energy financing via property taxes or in setting building energy codes.

Missouri has a Community Power score of 14 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, it allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, and it provides local flexibility in setting building energy codes. Missouri lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, or a shared renewables (or community solar) program. It has abysmal interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar.

Montana has a Community Power score of 6 out of 36. The state offers net metering and has average interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar, but that’s it. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, or laws letting cities pick their energy suppliers, or rules allowing shared/community renewables. Montana also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables and local flexibility to offer energy financing via property taxes or in setting building energy codes.

North Carolina has a Community Power score of 21 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and above average interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows allow shared/community renewable energy and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. North Carolina doesn’t allow communities to pick their energy suppliers or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

North Dakota has a Community Power score of 4 out of 36. The state has net metering and allows cities to set building energy codes, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development. The state’s policy shortcomings include abysmal grid interconnection policies, no shared renewables (e.g. community solar), no requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, no option for communities to pick their power supplier, and no choice for cities or counties to offer energy financing via property taxes.

Nebraska has a Community Power score of 4 out of 36. The state has net metering, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including simplified grid interconnection policies, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier, and no choice for cities or counties to offer energy financing via property taxes.

New Hampshire has a Community Power score of 18 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation, above average grid interconnection rules, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. The state also allows shared renewable energy (like community solar) and lets communities to use commercial property tax bills to finance clean energy. New Hampshire lacks local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

New Jersey has a Community Power score of 25 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering (plus aggregate net metering) and above average interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. New Jersey doesn’t allow shared/community renewable energy or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

New Mexico has a Community Power score of 16 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering, excellent grid interconnection rules, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. The state also allows communities to provide energy financing via property taxes to commercial properties. New Mexico doesn’t allow shared renewable energy (like community solar), local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Nevada has a Community Power score of 16 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation, above average grid interconnection rules, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. The state also allows communities to use commercial property tax bills to finance clean energy. Nevada lacks shared renewable energy (like community solar), local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier, or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

New York has a Community Power score of 29 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering and simplified interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows shared/community renewable energy, communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. The state only lacks a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects and a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

Ohio has a Community Power score of 23 out of 36. The state has many policies encouraging local power, including net metering, excellent  interconnection rules to encourage distributed energy resources like solar, as well as requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It also allows communities to pick their energy suppliers, and allows communities to provide financing to  commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Ohio doesn’t allow shared/community renewable energy or offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects or provide a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

Oklahoma has a Community Power score of 7 out of 36. The state’s limited rules include net metering and allowing cities to provide energy financing to commercial properties via property taxes. The state has abysmal interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar, and lacks many other good local power rules. The state doesn’t have a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, or laws letting cities pick their energy suppliers, or rules allowing shared/community renewables. Oklahoma also lacks a standard purchase contract for renewables or local flexibility to set building energy codes.

Oregon has a Community Power score of 24 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering with meter aggregation, excellent interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, and a shared renewables (community solar) program. It also allows communities to provide financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy and to set a stretch building energy code above the state standard. Oregon lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier or a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Pennsylvania has a Community Power score of 13 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering,  above average interconnection rules for distributed energy like rooftop solar, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. It lacks a shared renewables (community solar) program or provisions allowing communities to provide energy financing via property taxes. Pennsylvania also lacks community choice energy that allows communities to choose their energy supplier, a standard purchase contract for renewables, or local flexibility in setting building energy codes.

Rhode Island has a Community Power score of 22 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, starting with net metering and above average interconnection to encourage distributed energy resources like solar. The state also allows communities to pick their energy suppliers, allows shared renewables (like community solar), and allows communities to provide financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Rhode Island doesn’t allow require utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, offer a standard contract for distributed renewable energy projects, or provide a stretch building energy code for cities to go further than the state standard.

South Carolina has a Community Power score of 13 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering, excellent grid interconnection rules, and a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources. The state doesn’t allow communities to provide energy financing via property taxes, shared renewable energy (like community solar), local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, communities to pick their energy supplier, or provide a standard purchase contract for renewables.

South Dakota has a Community Power score of 3 out of 36. The state allows communities to set their own building energy codes and has average grid interconnection rules, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

Tennessee has a Community Power score of 1 out of 36. The state allows communities to set their own building energy codes, but lacks nearly every other possible policy for supporting local energy action. It is one of just a few states to prohibit net metering, has significant barriers to grid interconnection, has no state renewable standard for distributed resources, doesn’t enable shared/community renewable energy, and doesn’t allow communities to choose their energy supplier. It also lacks a standard contract for distributed energy resources and doesn’t allow communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy.

Texas has a Community Power score of 5 out of 36. The state allows communities to provide energy financing to residential and commercial properties with property assessed clean energy, but lacks any other significant policy to support local renewable energy development, including net metering, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), simplified grid interconnection policies, requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, or opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier.

Utah has a Community Power score of 12 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering, excellent grid interconnection rules, and it allows communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Utah lacks other significant policies to support local renewable energy development, including shared renewables (e.g. community solar), requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier, or local flexibility to set higher building energy codes.

Vermont has a Community Power score of 21 out of 36. The state has several policies encouraging local power, including net metering, above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, shared renewable energy (like community solar), a standard offer contract for distributed renewable energy, and it allows communities to use commercial property tax bills to finance clean energy. Vermont lacks local flexibility to set higher building energy codes or a policy to allow communities to pick their energy supplier.

Virginia has a Community Power score of 15 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation, excellent grid interconnection rules, shared renewables (e.g. community solar), and it allows communities to provide energy financing to commercial properties with property assessed clean energy. Virginia lacks other significant policies to support local renewable energy development, including requirements for utilities to purchase distributed renewable energy resources, opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier, a standard offer contract for distributed renewable energy, or local flexibility to set higher building energy codes.

Washington has a Community Power score of 16 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation, above average grid interconnection rules, a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, and a standard offer contract for distributed renewable energy. Washington lacks shared renewables (e.g. community solar), permission for communities to provide energy financing to properties with property assessed clean energy, opportunities for communities to pick their power supplier, or local flexibility to set higher building energy codes.

West Virginia has a Community Power score of 8 out of 36. The state has just two policies encouraging local power, including net metering allowing meter aggregation, and above average grid interconnection rules. The state lacks lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, shared renewable energy (like community solar), the option for communities to pick their energy supplier or to offer energy financing via property taxes, local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, and a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Wisconsin has a Community Power score of 8 out of 36. The state has just two policies encouraging local power, including net metering and permission for communities to offer energy financing to commercial entities via property taxes. The state has below average grid interconnection rules, and lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, shared renewable energy (like community solar), the option for communities to pick their energy supplier, local flexibility to set higher building energy codes, and a standard purchase contract for renewables.

Wyoming has a Community Power score of 9 out of 36. The state has a few policies encouraging local power, including net metering, permission for communities to offer energy financing to commercial entities via property taxes, and local flexibility in setting building energy codes. Wyoming has abysmal grid interconnection rules and it lacks a renewable standard requiring utility renewable energy procurement to include distributed resources, shared renewable energy (like community solar), the option for communities to pick their energy supplier, or a standard purchase contract for distributed renewables.

Facebooktwitterredditmail
John Farrell
Follow John Farrell:
John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Democracy initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and he develops tools that allow communities to take charge of their energy future, and pursue the maximum economic benefits of the transition to 100% renewable power.