Activists, utilities at odds over sol...

Activists, utilities at odds over solar power charges

There are 6 comments on the SouthCoastToday.com story from Mar 14, 2014, titled Activists, utilities at odds over solar power charges. In it, SouthCoastToday.com reports that:

The joint committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy held a hearing Tuesday on the bills, which would influence how owners of solar installations are compensated through the net metering program.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SouthCoastToday.com.

Solarman

La Quinta, CA

#1 Mar 14, 2014
""We understand there is a benefit to promoting renewable energy, but there is a cost to doing it and a need to protect our customers," he said.Durand could not provide a dollar amount for that cost or for the fee that Northeast Utilities might impose on solar owners. But, he said the company would be forced to increase its rates for non-solar customers unless Rodrigues' bill is passed.- See more at: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/... ;

Yeah, right. The utility doesn't have to build new plants, go to court to defend a power construction project, buy property, or maintain the homeowner's Solar PV system. What they do get is the "avoided" cost of NOT building more infrastructure. But this cost is NOT passed along to the homeowner who doesn't have solar PV. I would submit that Durand is not "protecting" their customers (from price increases) but is trying very hard to protect the utility's monopoly. Bottom line, change the business model or lose the market share.
Solarman

La Quinta, CA

#3 Mar 15, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
Too bad your submittal doesn't reflex reality.
All their costs "avoided" would have cost them the equivalent of WHOLESALE costs for energy. But they must pay RETAIL prices for the PV, and still maintain the system without those costs being paid by the freeloaders.
If the attachment, maintenance, and other system costs were paid by the PVer, and they received only wholesale prices for their excess power, then MAYBE it would be a fair deal. But then there would be no PVers cuz it wouldn't pay.
Too bad your lie is based entirely on your head stuck in your rectum. I've paid for my power, up front. Net metering is legal and legislated. "Equivalent to wholesale..." NO, when the utility doesn't have to build new infrastructure, they avoid costs on land purchase, rights of way claims in court, defending the power project in court and other non "wholesale" costs. The ratepayers do get to pay full "retail" for the power, so the utility doesn't have to write off the cost of going to court for their choices. As for "PVers" paying for their "fair share" of line and maintenance costs, AB327 has passed in California and we will see what the PUC will come up with there. The ACC in Arizona found that a fair price at this time is $5 a month. The CPUC may find some monthly line cost appropriate or may allow the cost to be deferred as energy credits. If that is the case, PVers will install more capacity on their roofs and still not have to pay an electric bill.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#4 Mar 16, 2014
Solarman wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad your lie is based entirely on your head stuck in your rectum.
Dear reader, Such a helpful statement... NOT!
I've paid for my power, up front. Net metering is legal and legislated.
There are many facets of economic life that are "legal and legislated" (redundancy anyone?) that are still wrong.
"Equivalent to wholesale..." NO, when the utility doesn't have to build new infrastructure, they avoid costs on land purchase, rights of way claims in court, defending the power project in court and other non "wholesale" costs.
As I said, all those costs are what make up wholesale.
The ratepayers do get to pay full "retail" for the power, so the utility doesn't have to write off the cost of going to court for their choices.
Oh, now the claim is that it is wrong cuz it is legal blackmail. The truly high moral ground don't you think? SMH
As for "PVers" paying for their "fair share" of line and maintenance costs, AB327 has passed in California and we will see what the PUC will come up with there. The ACC in Arizona found that a fair price at this time is $5 a month. The CPUC may find some monthly line cost appropriate or may allow the cost to be deferred as energy credits. If that is the case, PVers will install more capacity on their roofs and still not have to pay an electric bill.
And if they get paid retail, they are STILL gaming the system. Pay them wholesale, and connection and admin charges and FULL instantaneous retail (not the time averaged retail the rate structures usually provide for) at the dark hours, and they will be in a fair business deal. Till then, the PVers are stealing from the rest of us.
Solarman

La Quinta, CA

#5 Mar 16, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Dear reader, Such a helpful statement... NOT!
<quoted text> There are many facets of economic life that are "legal and legislated" (redundancy anyone?) that are still wrong.
<quoted text> As I said, all those costs are what make up wholesale.
<quoted text> Oh, now the claim is that it is wrong cuz it is legal blackmail. The truly high moral ground don't you think? SMH
<quoted text> And if they get paid retail, they are STILL gaming the system. Pay them wholesale, and connection and admin charges and FULL instantaneous retail (not the time averaged retail the rate structures usually provide for) at the dark hours, and they will be in a fair business deal. Till then, the PVers are stealing from the rest of us.
Cackle, slurp you lie some more for your utility masters. Apparently reading and comprehension are not your strong suits. AB327, CPUC, hello? According to you lawyers fees and land deals are what are included in the "wholesale" energy costs? Yeah, right. When the CPUC makes their ruling, we will see what is required of the utilities. Will they "unbundle" the costs for line and maintenance charges from the KWh rate and charge less per KWh of power or will they keep the retail rate the same and charge every ratepayer a separate line and maintenance charge every month? The PV system generates power during peak usage times of the day. Some utilities like SCE and PG&E have tiered electric rates. I'm not seeing the PVers getting peak hour pricing for the electricity they send back into the grid and their neighbors are charged at a rate of up to 32 cents a KWh. As for me, I've taken no money for the power I have produced and sent to the utility. I get a credit for each KWh above and beyond what it takes to run the house each day. I use some of the energy credits back at night and use the rest up during the summer months. Right now the Utility has decided the monthly administrative costs are taken out of the electricity net metered account in KWh credits instead of billed separately. They seem to be happy that they are paid in KWh and not dollars and cents. YOUR problem is moot as is your point.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#6 Mar 17, 2014
When they "unbundle" the charges, then MAYBE they will be able to pay the PVers a valid wholesale price and then the PVers will stop being theives. I can hope. Seems even CA has finally recognized the stupidity of their current mal-regulated fee structure and MAY actually get a decent one. I can hope.
Solarman

La Quinta, CA

#7 Mar 17, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
When they "unbundle" the charges, then MAYBE they will be able to pay the PVers a valid wholesale price and then the PVers will stop being theives. I can hope. Seems even CA has finally recognized the stupidity of their current mal-regulated fee structure and MAY actually get a decent one. I can hope.
Yeah right. Grasp that "hope" tightly in one hand and dump in the other. Which one fills up first? This is the same as your "hope" for LFTR, not going to happen. Solar is her now, can be purchased by anyone, installed and used as a peak time of use generation source. No actinides, long term storage or burial needed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Green Energy Scandal Brings Down Entire Government 1 hr Solarman 2
News Lake Worth - The city has rescheduled the curta... 1 hr Solarman 5
News Ohio student named to Forbes 30 under 30 for en... 1 hr Solarman 7
News Saudis Seek Up to $50 Billion for First Phase o... Mon Solarman 2
News Companies increasing energy storage development... Jan 15 Solarman 1
News Your View: Natural gas drives energy solutions ... Jan 15 Solarman 2
News Military's shift away from oil clashes with Tru... Jan 15 James 3
More from around the web