Solar Power: Electric Companies want you to pay even more!

[ClosedCaption]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/b...do-it-yourself-power.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the American electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity — the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates — accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s power generation.

And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities’ ability to maintain the nation’s grid.

They have good reason. In California, as intended, net metering has proved a strong draw for customers. From 2010 to 2012, the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. With federal tax credits and a rebate program for installation costs under the California Solar Initiative phasing out, determining how much to pay customers has become even more critical.

“Net metering right now is the only way for customers to get value for their rooftop solar systems,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the advocacy group Vote Solar.

Mr. Browning and other proponents say that solar customers deserve fair payment not only for the electricity they transmit but for the value that smaller, more dispersed power generators give to utilities. Making more power closer to where it is used, advocates say, can reduce stress on the grid and make it more reliable, as well as save utilities from having to build and maintain more infrastructure and large, centralized generators.

But utility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

Thoughts?

 

[Little-Acorn]

the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Wow, that's sure the people I want setting MY electric rates.

If the amount has increased by 160 percent, that means the amount has MORE than doubled, not "almost doubled".

Gotta love that publik skewl eddicashun.

 

[ClosedCaption]

the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Wow, that's sure the people I want setting MY electric rates.

If the amount has increased by 160 percent, that means the amount has MORE than doubled, not "almost doubled".

Gotta love that publik skewl eddicashun.

That's funny because they don't set electric rates that's the amount of installation increases. Then you have the nerve to crap on the public education to boot

 

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/b...do-it-yourself-power.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the American electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity — the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates — accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s power generation.

And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities’ ability to maintain the nation’s grid.

They have good reason. In California, as intended, net metering has proved a strong draw for customers. From 2010 to 2012, the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. With federal tax credits and a rebate program for installation costs under the California Solar Initiative phasing out, determining how much to pay customers has become even more critical.

“Net metering right now is the only way for customers to get value for their rooftop solar systems,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the advocacy group Vote Solar.

Mr. Browning and other proponents say that solar customers deserve fair payment not only for the electricity they transmit but for the value that smaller, more dispersed power generators give to utilities. Making more power closer to where it is used, advocates say, can reduce stress on the grid and make it more reliable, as well as save utilities from having to build and maintain more infrastructure and large, centralized generators.

But utility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

Thoughts?

solar power is Freedom.....mustn't have that.....the all-controlling smart meters must be installed instead...

 

[Spoonman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/b...do-it-yourself-power.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the American electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity — the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates — accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s power generation.

And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities’ ability to maintain the nation’s grid.

They have good reason. In California, as intended, net metering has proved a strong draw for customers. From 2010 to 2012, the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. With federal tax credits and a rebate program for installation costs under the California Solar Initiative phasing out, determining how much to pay customers has become even more critical.

“Net metering right now is the only way for customers to get value for their rooftop solar systems,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the advocacy group Vote Solar.

Mr. Browning and other proponents say that solar customers deserve fair payment not only for the electricity they transmit but for the value that smaller, more dispersed power generators give to utilities. Making more power closer to where it is used, advocates say, can reduce stress on the grid and make it more reliable, as well as save utilities from having to build and maintain more infrastructure and large, centralized generators.

But utility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

Thoughts?

If you can put solar up - do it. I put a 10K system up almost 3 years ago now. my 10K system has actually been yielding about 14K per year. Since I have put up the system I have had no utility bill and right now I am about 15,000 kwh in my favor with the power companies. I also converted my house to all electirc. Heat, cooking, hot water, everything.

the 3rd paragraph is very valid because yes, the energy produced is produced closer to the source where it is needed. for example, the excess I produce goes first to my neighbor, then any estra to the house next to him. when it passes through their meter the power company bills them for the electricity I produced.

but i do see the point that solar users no longer pay for the maintenance on the infrastructure since we no longer pay a bill. i'll have to check one of my monthly statements becaause i do believe we are still charged a monthly connection fee, which is intended to cover those costs. I'll have to double check though. I don't pay that much attention to it since every monthly invoice is a credit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/b...do-it-yourself-power.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the American electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity — the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates — accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s power generation.

And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities’ ability to maintain the nation’s grid.

They have good reason. In California, as intended, net metering has proved a strong draw for customers. From 2010 to 2012, the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. With federal tax credits and a rebate program for installation costs under the California Solar Initiative phasing out, determining how much to pay customers has become even more critical.

“Net metering right now is the only way for customers to get value for their rooftop solar systems,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the advocacy group Vote Solar.

Mr. Browning and other proponents say that solar customers deserve fair payment not only for the electricity they transmit but for the value that smaller, more dispersed power generators give to utilities. Making more power closer to where it is used, advocates say, can reduce stress on the grid and make it more reliable, as well as save utilities from having to build and maintain more infrastructure and large, centralized generators.

But utility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

Thoughts?

Build solar for your own use.
When you force the power company to buy your excess, that becomes a problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not just avoiding paying for the infrastucture costs. It also avoids the road taxes if you use that off-grid solar to fill up your EV. Not to mention the solar price supports and subsidies that the taxpayers are billed for.

The fact is that the utilities are MANDATED to take you daytime excess, but they still need generators for 80% of daytime peak usage at 10PM at night in a Cali summer. Who the hell wants to invest in a PRIMARY generator like a nat gas plant when the govt only allows to operate 16 hours a day? That's why places like Cali who can't get market investors to build PRIMARY power in their own state is doomed to be an energy beggar from the hydro N.W. and out of state generators.

Solar is not an alternative --- it's a daytime peaker supplement. And it COULD carry the excess 20% daytime peak demand. But when you come close to pushing 10% of daytime peak demand, the economics of the system will crush it..

To INCREASE total grid generation capacity -- you first have to encourage and build the PRIMARY source generators. And current govt intervention discourages that and forces the rates payers to pay for DUAL generation capacity.. Solar subsidies during the day and the primary generator labor, maintenance and partial fuel all day long..

The folks in Germany have figured this out since they reach "max solar integration" points awhile ago.. And they are FURIOUS about the costs on their bills..

 

[Spoonman]

It's not just avoiding paying for the infrastucture costs. It also avoids the road taxes if you use that off-grid solar to fill up your EV. Not to mention the solar price supports and subsidies that the taxpayers are billed for.

The fact is that the utilities are MANDATED to take you daytime excess, but they still need generators for 80% of daytime peak usage at 10PM at night in a Cali summer. Who the hell wants to invest in a PRIMARY generator like a nat gas plant when the govt only allows to operate 16 hours a day? That's why places like Cali who can't get market investors to build PRIMARY power in their own state is doomed to be an energy beggar from the hydro N.W. and out of state generators.

Solar is not an alternative --- it's a daytime peaker supplement. And it COULD carry the excess 20% daytime peak demand. But when you come close to pushing 10% of daytime peak demand, the economics of the system will crush it..

To INCREASE total grid generation capacity -- you first have to encourage and build the PRIMARY source generators. And current govt intervention discourages that and forces the rates payers to pay for DUAL generation capacity.. Solar subsidies during the day and the primary generator labor, maintenance and partial fuel all day long..

The folks in Germany have figured this out since they reach "max solar integration" points awhile ago.. And they are FURIOUS about the costs on their bills..

what electri companies need to allow you to do is be on the grid as well as off the grid. they allow either or. by allowing both it makes it more than a daytime peak supplement.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for, and they are not paying a carbon tax on it. So they really make out much better from a profit standpoint.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not just avoiding paying for the infrastucture costs. It also avoids the road taxes if you use that off-grid solar to fill up your EV. Not to mention the solar price supports and subsidies that the taxpayers are billed for.

The fact is that the utilities are MANDATED to take you daytime excess, but they still need generators for 80% of daytime peak usage at 10PM at night in a Cali summer. Who the hell wants to invest in a PRIMARY generator like a nat gas plant when the govt only allows to operate 16 hours a day? That's why places like Cali who can't get market investors to build PRIMARY power in their own state is doomed to be an energy beggar from the hydro N.W. and out of state generators.

Solar is not an alternative --- it's a daytime peaker supplement. And it COULD carry the excess 20% daytime peak demand. But when you come close to pushing 10% of daytime peak demand, the economics of the system will crush it..

To INCREASE total grid generation capacity -- you first have to encourage and build the PRIMARY source generators. And current govt intervention discourages that and forces the rates payers to pay for DUAL generation capacity.. Solar subsidies during the day and the primary generator labor, maintenance and partial fuel all day long..

The folks in Germany have figured this out since they reach "max solar integration" points awhile ago.. And they are FURIOUS about the costs on their bills..

what electri companies need to allow you to do is be on the grid as well as off the grid. they allow either or. by allowing both it makes it more than a daytime peak supplement.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for, and they are not paying a carbon tax on it. So they really make out much better from a profit standpoint.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for

You have a link for this claim?
I remember hearing that they're mandated to overpay for this "green" energy.

 

[Vox]

the whole purpose of "green energy" is the ability to raise prices

 

[Spoonman]

It's not just avoiding paying for the infrastucture costs. It also avoids the road taxes if you use that off-grid solar to fill up your EV. Not to mention the solar price supports and subsidies that the taxpayers are billed for.

The fact is that the utilities are MANDATED to take you daytime excess, but they still need generators for 80% of daytime peak usage at 10PM at night in a Cali summer. Who the hell wants to invest in a PRIMARY generator like a nat gas plant when the govt only allows to operate 16 hours a day? That's why places like Cali who can't get market investors to build PRIMARY power in their own state is doomed to be an energy beggar from the hydro N.W. and out of state generators.

Solar is not an alternative --- it's a daytime peaker supplement. And it COULD carry the excess 20% daytime peak demand. But when you come close to pushing 10% of daytime peak demand, the economics of the system will crush it..

To INCREASE total grid generation capacity -- you first have to encourage and build the PRIMARY source generators. And current govt intervention discourages that and forces the rates payers to pay for DUAL generation capacity.. Solar subsidies during the day and the primary generator labor, maintenance and partial fuel all day long..

The folks in Germany have figured this out since they reach "max solar integration" points awhile ago.. And they are FURIOUS about the costs on their bills..

what electri companies need to allow you to do is be on the grid as well as off the grid. they allow either or. by allowing both it makes it more than a daytime peak supplement.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for, and they are not paying a carbon tax on it. So they really make out much better from a profit standpoint.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for

You have a link for this claim?
I remember hearing that they're mandated to overpay for this "green" energy.

The current cost per kwh I pay through my power company is 10.2175 cents if i use electricity they generate. what they pay me for excess produced it 3.1255 cents per kwh. they don't pay through the nose for clean energy.

 

[The Rabbi]

the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Wow, that's sure the people I want setting MY electric rates.

If the amount has increased by 160 percent, that means the amount has MORE than doubled, not "almost doubled".

Gotta love that publik skewl eddicashun.

Uh you may want to reread that.
The amount of solar installed refers to number of panels or somesuch. Not the amount of electricity produced by them.
There is no contradiction here.

 

[tinydancer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/b...do-it-yourself-power.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the American electricity industry.

According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity — the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates — accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s power generation.

And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities’ ability to maintain the nation’s grid.

They have good reason. In California, as intended, net metering has proved a strong draw for customers. From 2010 to 2012, the amount of solar installed each year has increased by 160 percent, almost doubling the amount of electricity that rooftop systems can make, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. With federal tax credits and a rebate program for installation costs under the California Solar Initiative phasing out, determining how much to pay customers has become even more critical.

“Net metering right now is the only way for customers to get value for their rooftop solar systems,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the advocacy group Vote Solar.

Mr. Browning and other proponents say that solar customers deserve fair payment not only for the electricity they transmit but for the value that smaller, more dispersed power generators give to utilities. Making more power closer to where it is used, advocates say, can reduce stress on the grid and make it more reliable, as well as save utilities from having to build and maintain more infrastructure and large, centralized generators.

But utility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

Thoughts?

If I remember correctly, didn't Clint Eastwood sue the government over his wind farm?

I have to look that up. What I remember of it was Eastwood was royally pissed that he was generating so much and not getting a penny for linking his wind farm into the grid.

 

[tinydancer]

the whole purpose of "green energy" is the ability to raise prices

All in the name of "green". It's a scheme beyond all mother trucking schemes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the whole purpose of "green energy" is the ability to raise prices

All in the name of "green". It's a scheme beyond all mother trucking schemes.

world socialism...

and this brings us right back to the smart grid......which is so 'smart' it somehow can't measure input and pay a fair price for it...because that would encourage independence...

 

[ClosedCaption]

corporatism is more like it

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Does conserving energy then also "threaten" the grid?

 

[Redfish]

they should only bill you for your net usage if you have solar. They should not have to buy it from you. Only bill you for what you use from them.

Now, if you want to give up the solar tax credits then maybe selling it to them makes sense---ready to do that?

 

[flacaltenn]

what electri companies need to allow you to do is be on the grid as well as off the grid. they allow either or. by allowing both it makes it more than a daytime peak supplement.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for, and they are not paying a carbon tax on it. So they really make out much better from a profit standpoint.

the other point you miss is the clean energy they buy back from you is a lot lower then they resell it for

You have a link for this claim?
I remember hearing that they're mandated to overpay for this "green" energy.

The current cost per kwh I pay through my power company is 10.2175 cents if i use electricity they generate. what they pay me for excess produced it 3.1255 cents per kwh. they don't pay through the nose for clean energy.

Well then -- you are paying for grid infrastructure right there aren'tcha?

There is no free lunch.. And there is no "free energy".. Unless you want to go off the grid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does conserving energy then also "threaten" the grid?

Actually it does.. Relying on voluntary reductions so that you can assume phoney low margins for your peak generation is a sure path to repeated brown-outs..

That's the standard operating procedure in Calif. right now..
And why BIG semi has left or would like to leave your Valley..