D.C. Public Service Commission Approves Phased-In Doubling of Net Energy Metering Generation Cap

Aug 10, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Net metering, as described in the Order, “allows an owner of rooftop solar panels [or other eligible renewable energy system] to participate in the electric grid as a distributed energy producer. Solar panels first supply power to the home [or business], and at times when the [system] produces more power than the home [or business] is using the power is sent back onto the grid to be used by other customers. The meter ‘spins’ backwards, subtracting the power sent onto the grid from the total power used by the consumer. . . . [A]t the end of the month the consumer is charged only for net electricity used.”5 Previously, an eligible customer-generator in D.C. was allowed to “‘install generation that is forecast to provide no more than 100 percent of its annual historic use,’ which limits the amount a customer may receive or be credited for the excess generation exported to the grid.”6 Here, in connection with its PowerPath initiative, the PSC determined that “the generating threshold for net energy metering systems for individual behind-the-meter generators should be increased beyond 100 percent of the customer’s historical usage” to support and advance D.C.’s renewable energy goals.7 Phasing in the change over five years seeks to strike a balance between quickly modernizing the energy system in D.C. and protecting against adverse reliability, safety and cost impacts on the electric distribution system.8

Under the new scheme, “excess generation not used in a previous month will remain on the customer’s account as a rolling kWh credit amount. Any monthly excess generation, used to offset [that] month’s usage, will be calculated and credited to the customer at the full retail rate[, which includes the combined rate for generation, supply, and distribution]. Any total remaining excess kWh at the end of the [calendar year], will be compensated at the generation rate only.”9 Remainders over $25 will be refunded to the customer.10 To guard against adverse impacts that might arise from additional interconnections of larger behind-the-meter generation systems, the PSC also directed its “NEM Working Group to meet after July 1, 2021, to review and discuss the impacts of the 2020 and 2021 threshold increases in generation of customer-generators on the electric distribution system.”11 In addition, on or before October 1, 2021, and each October 1 thereafter, if Pepco “identifies a reliability, safety, or cost impact on the electric distribution system caused by the implementation of the [new] Generation Threshold Schedule,” it can request suspension of the increase in the following year.12 Absent such a request, the increase will take place automatically on January 1 each year.13


1 RM9-2020-03, In the Matter of 15 DCMR Chapter 9 – Net Energy Metering, Order No. 20387 (Aug. 6, 2020) (“Order”).

2 See 15 DCMR § 999 (defining “customer-generator” as “a residential or commercial customer that owns (or leases or contracts) and operates an electric generating facility that: (a) has a capacity of not more than 1000 kilowatts; (b) uses renewable resources, cogeneration, fuel cells, or microturbines; (c) is located on the customer’s premises; (d) is interconnected with the Electric Company’s transmission and distribution facilities; and (e) is intended primarily to offset all or part of the customer’s own electricity requirements.”).

3 Order at P 1.

4 See id. n.1.

5 Id. n.5.

6 Id. P 2 (footnote omitted).

7 Id. PP 2, 13.

8 See id. P 10.

9 Id. P 5.

10 Id.

11 Id. P 11.

12 See id. P 4. See also 15 DCMR § 901.2(b) (as amended).

13 See 15 DCMR § 901.2(b) (as amended).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.