Power company to ding people with solar systems...

Contact your state Public Utilities Commission and raise hell! This is just a money grab from the utility.

Icarus

 

In South Australia it has been mandated that power companies will pay double for solar power to what the customer pays for power from the grid, and apart from the initial cost of solar instalation there is no cost to connect to the grid.

What is so hard?

 

Same thing in Ontario. Folks who actually believed the Dalton McGuinty Liberals wanted "green" power went out to invest their own money into solar power. Then got screwed by the Ontario government. Excellent and hard-hitting analysis from Fifth Estate

The Gospel of Green | CBC News: the fifth estate

Despite outright criminal fraud from massive cost overruns of nuclear power plants like Darlington (Original cost of about $5 bil soared to over $12 bil), the Ontario government then decided instead to close the coal plants and go nuclear

More recently, they decided nuclear would now cost too much. I really don't think Ontario has one clue how they are going to source the electricity they need

 

In spite of my previous post in this thread, I have changed my mind (sort of) after reading some learned posts on the same subject on my Solar Energy Forum: Got Solar Panels? Utility Wants To Charge You For Not Using Their Energy - Solar Electric Power Discussion Forum by Northern Arizona Wind & Sun

I do think the utility in this case is doing a money grab, but they are positioning themselves to keep up with costs as RE becomes more mainstream, and the cost(s) of energy and delivery gets more complicated.

Icarus

 

I think you can watch "Gospel of Green" directly from the CBC Fifth Estate website. They covered the bulls*** a Swiss immigrant farmer in Ontario went through trying to hook up the solar system on his farm to OPG.

He put an ungodly amount of money into the system to try to follow all the twists and steps OPG demanded, which apparently changed on a daily basis. AFAIK it still isn't hooked up

 

Amen my bratha ... the power companies forget that they don't have to buy the real estate ... fund more nukes, etc ... in addition to the fact that when solar is running it decreases the load on the grid ... when the grid most needs relief.

.

 

This is actually a good thing in a twisted way. It provides the incentive for solar users to become 100% self sufficient so that the power utility has no affect on their lives.

 

Not sure I understand ... by self sufficient, do you mean PV purchasers will build closer to the 'par' level of PV power? . . . or that PV purchasers will be more likely to add the cost of batteries ... going "off- grid". Building a battery backup (in order to be off grid) doubles your cost ... and you don't get solar initiave credits and tax credits ... which pays appx 50% of your costs. I don't see that scenerio happening. that's not enough spite value for your buck. And that's not even thinking how batteires ar a reoccuring cost.

.

 

yeah, off grid is a complete loser unless you have to run transmission to the property. Even then, you have to be a good distance from the nearest line.

 

I get inquiries all the time from folks that "want to "go solar", get of the grid and stick it to the power company". They are usually chagrined when informed that net/net, a off grid system will cost about twice per AC watt that a grid tie system will, mostly due to battery life cycle costs, and basic system inefficiencies. (charge controllers, basic battery charging efficiency, inverter efficiency and wiring losses).

Few if any off grid systems qualify for tax credits, nor utility rebates, making an off grid system not just twice as expensive but potentially 4-8 times depending on credits or rebates.

Icarus

 

What Xcel wants they get... even when they "lose" when the PUC gives them half of what they asked for, it's because they only get what they really wanted. I wonder what they really want here...

 

What about the free ride that coal companies get cause they never have to pay for asthma and other respiratory events caused by their emissions?

 

Xcel Energy dropped the plan. To much political flack for too little revenue. I'm sure they will bring it back up later.

 

I found a news release that covers the same things...looks like they've backed off for the moment.

Xcel backs off rate increase for solar
Citing customer confusion, utility shelves the idea for now


By Laura Snider (Contact)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009




DENVER — Xcel Energy has backed off its proposal to raise rates on new solar customers — for now.


The solar fee hike was part of a larger increase in electricity rates that Xcel is asking for to recover the cost of bringing a new coal-fired generator on line in Pueblo.


Xcel dropped the solar fee — which would have charged solar-panel owners for the costs the utility says are associated with their homes being hooked up to the grid — because the proposal “caused significant customer confusion.†But the company isn’t ready to give up on the idea altogether.


“We still believe we’re on the right side of the discussion here,†said Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz. “But sometimes, being on the right side of the discussion isn’t enough.â€


The proposed solar fee was based on the principle that it costs Xcel money to maintain a grid connection — and keep a reserve of electricity available — for solar-panel customers even when the customers are “net zero†during a year, ultimately producing as much electricity as they use.


“Even if you net out in a year, it’s immaterial,†Stutz said. “We still have to maintain the delivery systems to get electricity to the house when you’re not generating yourself.â€


Solar advocates in Boulder, who helped organize a quick and vigorous opposition to the proposal, cheered Xcel’s short-term decision, but took exception to the utility’s reasons for its change of mind.


“We are not excited that they believe that we are confused,†said RJ Harrington, director of legislative and regulatory affairs for Boulder-based Simple Solar.


Employees at Simple Solar clearly understood the proposal, Harrington said. They just disagree with Xcel about whether it’s necessary or even fair.


The heart of Xcel’s argument in favor of the fee is that solar customers are getting a free ride, enjoying the benefits of grid backup without paying for it. Solar energy supporters, on the other hand, say that the benefits of having solar panels scattered on rooftops across Colorado — a concept called distributed generation — are greater than the costs.


“We are concerned that Xcel still doesn’t seem to recognize the benefits of distributed generation,†Harrington said.


Solar panels can help reduce the utility’s peak demand in the summer when air conditioners are running full throttle, and solar customers allow Xcel to add renewable energy generation to its portfolio without having to build a new transmission network, solar advocates say.


Studies performed at other state utilities seem to bear out the solar industry’s claim. A study released in January by Arizona Public Service compared the benefits and the costs of small-scale solar generation and found that “solar distributed energy brings value to Arizona Public Service in both the near term and, increasingly, over time.â€


“The winning business case for solar distributed energy in Arizona is a combination of hard, quantitative facts, such as the reduction of line losses, energy savings for customers, and reduced or deferred capital expenditures,†the study said. “But it also includes softer, qualitative benefits such as increased job opportunities for installers, a more sustainable environment, and as yet unquantifiable benefits that will likely become economic in the future, such as the value of carbon.â€


In Colorado, no such study exists, but on Tuesday, the Governor’s Energy Office announced its intention to launch a comprehensive analysis of distributed energy so that the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Xcel, can make an informed decision on the costs and benefits of distributed generation in the future.


“I commend Xcel for reconsidering this proposal,†Gov. Bill Ritter said in the news release that announced the new study. “We appreciate Xcel’s concerns about the cost of distributing power and maintaining the electric grid, and we will work with Xcel to study these issues moving forward.â€



[FONT=Lucida Grande][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Lucida Grande][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Goudy Old Style][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica] [FONT=Helvetica][FONT='Lucida Grande'][SIZE=6]~~~~~~~~~~~~[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica][FONT='Lucida Grande'][SIZE=4]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica][FONT=Goudy Old Style][SIZE=4][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=3][FONT=Helvetica][FONT=Helvetica]Ceal Smith, MSci[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica][FONT=Helvetica]Tierra Consulting


[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

 

That's a nice resolution for the moment. Looks like Xcel unnecessarily stuck its head into a hornet's nest. The study is unlikely to be kind to them with regards to distributed generation.