With the Senate dedicating a fair amount of floor time to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, Republican senators are taking the opportunity to shine a light on bad practices in the energy economy through the amendment process.

Arizona's Jeff Flake, whose home state is ground zero in the solar trade, has filed 11 amendments to the bill. While some amendments are bipartisan, and others less so, one proposal stands out: Amendment #3053, on the topic of "Ratepayer Fairness."

With the Senate dedicating a fair amount of floor time to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, Republican senators are taking the opportunity to shine a light on bad practices in the energy economy through the amendment process.

Arizona's Jeff Flake, whose home state is ground zero in the solar trade, has filed 11 amendments to the bill. While some amendments are bipartisan, and others less so, one proposal stands out: Amendment #3053, on the topic of "Ratepayer Fairness."

The Prescott eNews summarizes:

Establishes a new Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act standard requiring state regulatory authorities and non-regulated boards to examine whether new policies would result in cost shifts among customers, where a large customer class ends up cross-subsidizing a technology only used by a few customers. Flake introduced this amendment as a standalone bill (S.2384), and U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) successfully offered a substantially similar amendment to the House energy bill (H.R. 8, Section 1107).

Pushing for the amendment, Flake is pushing back on a competing amendment proposed by Senators King (I-ME), and Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) that would, as UtilityDive reports:

protect rooftop solar customers from changes to their net metering rates enacted after they install their systems. While existing solar users are typically "grandfathered in" to new rate structures, a recent decision in Nevada applied new, lower remuneration rates for rooftop solar generation to existing solar customers as well as new ones.

State utility commissions, at the behest of environmentalists, have adopted mandates for renewable energy that power companies must comply with. Even in sunny states, this has created an artificial "rooftop solar" market, replete with federal tax incentives, state tax incentives, and of course, rebates and reimbursements for homeowners who install rooftop solar panels. Homeowners who, for the most part, are typically wealthy, or least far from poor.

Even with all of these "nudges" from the feds and states, King and Reid are trying to keep the reimbursement rates for rooftop solar artificially high. This has drawn criticism from a broad swath of groups, including energy industry competitors. But it's also being opposed by groups representing "historically underrepresented consumers" like the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

In their letter to the Senate opposing King and Reid's amendment, the groups write:

"the real impacts net energy metering has on those living on the lower end of the economic scale. Already, we spend a higher percentage of our incomes on energy than others, and adding any more to our bills is just too much, regardless of our support for solar."

In other words, the groups argue that subsidizing rooftop solar payments will mean higher rates for everyone else.

Flake's amendment would require these state agencies to look at whether measures like "net metering" and requiring the construction of electric car charging stations costs other consumers money.

A spokesman for the Energy Equality Coalition praised Flake's measure, saying: "We believe authorities should consider the working-poor before requiring them to subsidize technology they could never afford, and that's why we support Senator Flake's Ratepayer Fairness proposal."

As both technologies are generally toys for the rich, what sense does it make to force everyone else to ensure Teslas are properly charged and rooftop solar enthusiasts get a good ROI?

The Senate is expected to continue debate on the measure through the end of the week and it's unclear whether either amendment will be guaranteed a vote. Will rich environmentalists win again? Or will Flake impose his version of fairness? Stay tuned to C-SPAN 2 to find out.