An administrative law judge for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued a decision on the last day of 2013 declaring that solar power is more cost-competitive than natural gas. Natural gas remains the biggest competitor to all renewable energy as the massive domestic shale deposits combined with the relatively low costs of the fossil fuel have made it the darling of politicians and utilities. Coal power is decline in the U.S.

The judge pointed to a couple of trends that concerned him. First was declining revenue and demand for utilities. Second was the potential of future carbon regulations to make fossil fuel based power more expensive than can be predicted while solar costs will remain flat for the duration of the solar farm. Third, he suggested that smaller solar plants offered a chance to reduce distribution and transmission costs.

But it was his final reason that was most interesting. Lewis Milford writes:

And then last, he asked the most important question, one that might foretell the future of energy policy in the competition of gas and renewable power. And that question was about scale – with the uncertain future of electric load, with the potential for added carbon costs and the real carbon emissions from natural gas, with the costs of new power lines for large plants, would it make more sense to approve funding for a large, central power plant powered by fossil fuel, or to make incremental, scalable investments in solar?

The scalability argument is relatively new in terms of solar. As microgrid deployment picks up and we see third parties do small 3 or 4 megawatt installations that shave off utility revenue, it highlights how solar offers a truly scalable solution, presuming you have good rooftop access or the requisite amount of land. I’m not expecting a major trend here. I still think we’re headed toward an energy economy fueled by natural gas. But it’s an interesting argument nonetheless.