January 12, 2026

By Bill Andrews and Tom Hackney

BCSEA recently filed its final argument in the BC Utilities Commission’s proceeding on BC Hydro’s proposed changes to the net metering rate. The argument begins with BCSEA’s long-standing support for clean/renewable small-scale behind-the-meter electricity customer self-generation. The argument then expresses BCSEA’s opposition to BC Hydro’s proposal to replace the existing Net Metering Service Rate (RS 1289) with a “net billing” Self Generation Service Rate (RS 2289). BCSEA acknowledges the potential for cost-shifting under Net Metering where a participant’s retail energy rate is higher than the financial value to the utility of net energy delivered by the participant to the utility. However, BCSEA argued that the BCUC should defer consideration of rate design changes aimed at cost-shifting until the number of Net Metering participants reaches an objective threshold percentage (such as 1 percent) of eligible customers. BCSEA said that the focus of BC Hydro and the BCUC should be on growing the number of participants in Hydro’s Net Metering program.

BCSEA also provided an alternative argument. If the BCUC rejects BCSEA’s primary position, and does make changes to net metering rate designs now, then BCSEA said it would support closing the existing Net Metering Services Rate (RS 1289), but with a 20-year transition period from participants’ Net Metering Service Start Date, and opening a new Self-Generation Service Rate (RS 2289), with net billing and an Energy Price of 10 cents/kWh based on the financial value of net energy to BC Hydro and its customers. 

BCSEA also expressed support for BC Hydro’s proposed new Community Generation Service Rate (RS 2290), with net billing and an Energy Price equal to the Energy Price for RS 2289 (10 cents/kWh). However, BCSEA opposed BC Hydro’s proposed limitations on the Community Generation Service Rate, specifically: proration of the maximum net injection limit based on the number of benefitting customers, barring a net metering or net billing customer from being a “benefitting customer” under RS 2290, and limiting a benefiting customer to participating in one shared generating facility at a time. BCSEA said it is concerned that these limitations would add further complications and impede uptake of the yet-untried community generation rate design. BCSEA said it would be better to consider the results of the proposed five-year evaluation and to add limitations, if required, at that time. 

Final arguments have also been filed by the following interveners (in the order listed on the BCUC’s website): 

• MoveUP (the union representing BC Hydro employees) generally supports BC Hydro’s proposal to move from Net Metering to Net Billing but argues that BC Hydro should go farther to reduce what MoveUP sees as cross-subsidies by which non-participating ratepayers, particularly lower-income households, subsidize higher-income solar participants.
• Clean Energy BC (CEBC) opposes BC Hydro’s proposed Net Metering Service Rate changes (RS 2289 and RS 2290) as filed. CEBC says the application is premature, incomplete, and produces unfair and unduly discriminatory outcomes, especially for residential and small general service customers. CEBC asks the BCUC to postpone a decision until additional analysis is completed, or to reject the Application outright if BC Hydro cannot demonstrate the new rate designs are acceptable.
• Commercial Energy Consumers (CEC) supports BC Hydro’s proposed tariff redesign and asks the BCUC to approve the application with modifications. CEC says that, compared to Net Metering, Net Billing improves fairness and reduces cross-subsidization, while allowing customer-sited solar to grow at a sustainable pace.
• Charge Solar, Riverside, Shift (Charge Solar et al) recommend that the BCUC defer the entire BC Hydro Net Metering rate redesign package. These companies in the solar sector argue that BC Hydro’s application is premature, unsupported by evidence, violates several Bonbright principles, and relies on unstable rebates to mask negative economic impacts. Failing full deferral, they propose targeted amendments.
• City of Vancouver, City of Richmond, Metro Vancouver, District of North Vancouver support the concept of creating a Community Generation Service Rate (RS 2290), but they say BC Hydro’s proposed design is not fair, not effective, and will produce minimal uptake. They ask the BCUC to reject RS 2290 as currently designed, and to direct BC Hydro to resubmit a revised design within one year. 
• Community Solar Coalition opposes BC Hydro’s proposed Net Billing rate redesign. CSC argues that the application is premature, incomplete, economically incoherent, structurally discriminatory, and unsupported by evidence of system risk. 
• EcoSmart Foundation critiques BC Hydro’s proposed community-generation rate (RS 2290). EcoSmart recommends that the BCUC reject RS 2290 and require BC Hydro to propose a redesigned, functional community-solar framework by April 1, 2027.
• Zone II Ratepayers Group (RPG), comprising Kwadacha Nation and Tsay Keh Dene Nation, supports BC Hydro’s move from Net Metering to Net Billing in principle, but argues that BC Hydro’s proposal fails to address the unique realities of Non-Integrated Areas and will make things worse for remote Indigenous communities.
• Residential Consumer Intervener Association (RCIA) and COSCO, et al. (Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC, which replaces the BC Old Age Pensioners Association) argue jointly that BC Hydro’s proposed transition from Net Metering to Net Billing is desirable. RCIA sees the move to net billing as a “balanced interim reform” of the Net Metering rate framework. COSCO rejects BC Hydro’s proposals regarding the energy price, the transition period for existing net metering participants, and the net injection limits.

BC Hydro’s reply argument is due January 14, 2026. Then we will await the BCUC’s decision, which we hope will be issued by March or April.