-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
More anti-Solar shenanigans :(
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Yep... I think that's the line where the line is crossed. The utilities are supposed to represent their rate payers. If you're using rate payer money to basically lobby against rate payers that's illegal.
Merrill
Merrill
Normally with a monopoly you have to have a watchdog which in California would be the CPUC. Unfortunately they are sleeping together.
Sic 'em Elon!
When you're done with SRP come kick SPSs butt... they're even worse!
$600/yr? Must be nice...
SPSs fees are ~$75/mo!
When you're done with SRP come kick SPSs butt... they're even worse!
$600/yr? Must be nice...
SPSs fees are ~$75/mo!
Last edited:
Merrill
Merrill
Don’t you just love those power companies, marketing that they want you to go solar get energy efficient appliances giving you 7 ways to save money on your bill and then sticking it to you for having done all,the above. Monopolies are not good in any business and more competition would be welcome, unfortunately with the new CCA’s in California they still have to follow all the guidelines of the power company monopoly.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
cpa
Active Member
The complexion of the Supremes does not give me much hope that their decision will be the one that we want.
My guess is that they vote along party lines, 5-4 to remand the decision or to toss it entirely. Since IANAL, I do not know exactly what their options are, and what the appellant is requesting.
My guess is that they vote along party lines, 5-4 to remand the decision or to toss it entirely. Since IANAL, I do not know exactly what their options are, and what the appellant is requesting.
Here's a good editorial debunking the nonsense claims of the utilities that solar customers are costing the non-solar customers dollars:
Do solar consumers create a cost-shift to non-solar users?
Do solar consumers create a cost-shift to non-solar users?
A case study:
A small business switched to NEM 2.0 through Southern California Edison 12/26/2017. Edison notified the NEM 2.0 customer they would be assigned power plans that best fit their usage. This did not happen, in fact the opposite. They keep the customer in the highest possible tariff in their rulebook that is used to punish those who do not save power.
Before NEM 2.0 in Jan 2017 (same power plan in 2017 and 2018):
$1,003.29 for 5,764 kWh January 2017 is $0.174 per kWh.
After NEM 2.0 in Jan 2018:
$558.98 for 2,124 kWh for January 2018 is $0.263 per kWh. This is 51% higher costs per kWh post-solar.
The more solar kWh's that are generated for 2018 increased the cost per kWh geometrically.
Should the test subject increase power output, each kWh is worth $0.075 towards lowering the bill (generation+distribution). Should production exceed consumption, the utility still charges for the customer solar production until the first $230 worth of power is created at $0.025 before the break even point is reached. There is a $230 per month meter charge.
SCE so far refuses to change to the power plan after the first request was made in Dec 2017.
SCE's tariff has placed the current Jan 2018 peak cost for power at 06:00am-06:15am = $175 for 4 kWh used for this 15 minute window.
Out of the $559 billing, $112 of the bill is for actual distribution and generation of the power for January.
Whatever SCE markets to their customers is not actually in their customer's best interests, or even truthful as SCE knows truthful to be.
Bonus point? To plug in a 10 kW EV charger this morning at 6:00am and consume 10 kWh, the bill from SCE climbs $159 x 10kWh + $0.75 of kWh. So $16 per kWh to charge EVs in "Off Peak". Mid-peak and peak rates are signficantly higher.
Southern California is lying to the CPUC and the media, and the public in order to stop EV charging and Solar generation. Make no mistake, this will be a court case later this year that will claim fraud and criminal activities on the part of SCE.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I've wondered about cost shifting myself, and this article helped me understand the utility stance.
They say that DG will increase the cost burden to the regular customer ... and they have a point, although they omit an important piece of information. They should actually be saying that DG increases the charges to regular customers in order to keep shareholder returns at present levels.
I bet that is true, but then it is not really my problem, is it ? The recently reformed PUC in Nevada has a very sharp member these days who struck out one word from a utility promoted net metering proposal. Instead of it saying (paraphrased) "the utility will remain whole," she changed it to "the utility will remain solvent." Owners of residential PV do not have an obligation towards the utility investors to line their pockets.
A lot of places have special winter rates for people with electric heat. The logic being that since fixed costs are embedded in the energy charge if you're using more electricity for heat your per kWh rate should be lower so your share of the fixed costs are the same as people with gas heat.
Here's a fun fact: The electric rate for residential heating customers in NM is going up >20% because Xcel settled with NM Gas Company to increase what they charge for electric heat => making fools fuel more competitive.... gonna be an uphill battle
Here's a fun fact: The electric rate for residential heating customers in NM is going up >20% because Xcel settled with NM Gas Company to increase what they charge for electric heat => making fools fuel more competitive.... gonna be an uphill battle
And the other thing they are omitting is DG is making the grid more efficient. California PUC recently told the IOUs they didn't have to make billions of dollars of upgrades to distribution and transmission infrastructure. That save rate payers money.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Not many, but Kit Carson Co-op in Taos, NM is a great story to follow. They and a mostly clean energy provider teamed up to get out of their membership obligation towards Tri-state.
My local co-op is also a member of Tri-state. And while they are not pushing to leave the fraternity of coal based power, they are actually very easy to work with to set up home DG and they offer a reasonable net metering plan: 1:1 kWh banked and used anytime during the year, and 4.2 cents a kWh paid for excess annual generation.
I don't know the details of how they came up with the excess generation remuneration but I've been told that they on average pay 7 cents a kWh to Tri-state: 4 cents for the energy and 3 cents demand charges. If DG can reduce their demand charges, they will likely remain at least neutral towards DG.
brucet999
Active Member
I'm guessing he means Distributed Generation. Basically anyone who has solar panels on their home that feeds power into the grid.
RT
Waiting for debate and hopefully a vote over solar fees in NM... first up;
'On the Matter of Camel Towing'
Ahhh I needed a good laugh.... the commission has issued a cease and desist to 'Camel Towing';
'On the Matter of Camel Towing'
Ahhh I needed a good laugh.... the commission has issued a cease and desist to 'Camel Towing';
Last edited:
VICTORY!!
New Mexico Solar Installer Joins Fight Against Unfair Fee — and Wins
HUGE thank you to Earth Justice and Vote Solar. Please support them. This would have been IMPOSSIBLE without them.
New Mexico Solar Installer Joins Fight Against Unfair Fee — and Wins
HUGE thank you to Earth Justice and Vote Solar. Please support them. This would have been IMPOSSIBLE without them.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Wow.
My dear nwdiver, you amaze and delight me.
Even in Republican dumFK land one smart guy on a mission with a couple of friends can make a difference.
My dear nwdiver, you amaze and delight me.
Even in Republican dumFK land one smart guy on a mission with a couple of friends can make a difference.
skitown
Member
Similar threads
