Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the sometimes-I-despair dept.

NewsOK reports that the Oklahoma legislature has passed a bill that allows regulated utilities to apply to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to charge a higher base rate to customers who generate solar and wind energy and send their excess power back into the grid reversing a 1977 law that forbade utilities to charge extra to solar users. "Renewable energy fed back into the grid is ultimately doing utility companies a service," says John Aziz. "Solar generates in the daytime, when demand for electricity is highest, thereby alleviating pressure during peak demand."

The state's major electric utilities backed the bill but couldn't provide figures on how much customers already using distributed generation are getting subsidized by other customers. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma have about 1.3 million electric customers in the state. They have about 500 customers using distributed generation. Kathleen O'Shea, OG&E spokeswoman, said few distributed generation customers want to sever their ties to the grid. "If there's something wrong with their panel or it's really cloudy, they need our electricity, and it's going to be there for them," O'Shea said. "We just want to make sure they're paying their fair amount of that maintenance cost." The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). "When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Turbidity on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:25AM

    by Turbidity (4203) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:25AM (#34674)

    A bit depressing to see established interests sell out our future to preserve their business model.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:41AM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:41AM (#34700) Journal

    Well, hold on there...

    The people using solar power don't have to pay any money to the Power companies. They can just decline to hook up to the grid.

    But the do hook up to the grid, because they want backup when there solar fails to supply the same 5 9s of service they expect from the grid.

    So the power company has to run lines to their house, purchase and install regulation and isolation equipment to make sure the solar power these customers are feeding back onto the lines can be controlled and is properly conditioned (proper voltage, proper phasing, ability to remotely disconnect, etc). You can't be calling up 150 customers to have them take their solar off the system so you can de-energize a transmission line for maintenance of safety, only to get a lineman killed when some farmer decides he can reconnect any damn time he pleases.

    So there are real physical infrastructure costs to hooking up a solar contributor, and that equipment has to be maintained.

    But because this customer uses so little power from the utility, the costs the power company would normally recover in a year might take 5 or 10 years to recover.

    In the mean time, the existing law requires the power company to pay these solar contributors at the avoidance rate. (The avoidance rate is the highest price the utility pays for ANY power source.)

    So having these solar contributors on their grid is a double whammy. Much Higher infrastructure costs, and a requirement to buy their power at the highest cost.

    Even if you have cheap hydro power sufficient to prevent ever having to fire up the coal plant, you have to pay coal plant rates to these micro providers preferentially.

    Wanting to recover their costs within the normal amortization period is not evil, its simple economics.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:47AM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:47AM (#34716)
      That would be a good point.... IF the solar customers were leeches.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:44PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:44PM (#35133) Journal

        But in a sense, they are.

        Its kind of like you demanding a company car, but then doing MOST of your business travel in your own car, and billing the company for miles traveled.

        The company still ends up footing the bill to provide you with a car, AND pay you miles. That is a lot of fixed cost, depreciating, while yielding no revenue to the company.

        Its the exact same thing for solar contributors.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:05PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:05PM (#35143)
          The solar customers are putting power back into the grid. They are, in effect, making service more reliable for the rest of their customers. Though true they are getting some compensation for it, they are also paying to keep the solar side of the stuff on their property maintained in order to keep their end of it reliable.

          To correct your metaphor: Your company issues you a car, they cover its maintenance yadda yadda yadda. It sits idle longer in your garage than the cars of your colleagues because you use your own, but the company is still paying the same amount of money to keep it maintained. When one of the cars of your coworkers needs to be taken out of the pool to be repaired, YOUR car is then provided. Yes, they're paying to keep your company car maintained, but everybody is still getting to work on time every day, which is also of value to the company. That has to be measured as well, otherwise fixing this perceived monetary loss could have unintended consequences.

          This is not a leeching situation and treating solar customers as such will not go over well for very rational reasons.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:43PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:43PM (#35157) Journal

            All of this ignores the fact that, at least everywhere in the US I've lived, transmission costs and generation costs are billed separately. And transmission costs is usually a fixed monthly rate.

            I'm pretty sure that's by federal law too -- as part of a program to allow you to purchase the energy itself from alternative suppliers.

            So...what the hell? Are these costs not broken up in OK? Why not? Why should they bill more per kilowatt hour to make up for largely fixed costs? Why should someone who gets 10% of their electricity from solar have to pay more for maintenance of those lines than someone who gets 90% from solar?

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:01PM

            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:01PM (#35160) Journal

            My analogy is more accurate than yours.

            The power company can not uproot its poles and lines that lead to your property, nor can they unmount their transformers, meters and control cut offs to move them to some other location to handle some repairs at other sites.

            These are sunk costs, from which they will earn very little revenue, very slowly. In fact, the majority of the use of these poles and wires will COST them money, in payments to the solar user at ridiculous rates for very unreliable power.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:03PM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:03PM (#35221)
              "My analogy is more accurate than yours."

              It is not. The equipment is still in use in order to receive the power from solar.

              "In fact, the majority of the use of these poles and wires will COST them money, in payments to the solar user at ridiculous rates for very unreliable power."

              That is not a problem created by the solar customers.
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by evilviper on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:49AM

      by evilviper (1760) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:49AM (#34717) Homepage Journal

      You can't be calling up 150 customers to have them take their solar off the system so you can de-energize a transmission line for maintenance of safety, only to get a lineman killed when some farmer decides he can reconnect any damn time he pleases.

      Grid-tie systems are specifically designed to NOT do this. On the rare chance you end up with a horribly defective one along the line, just short the power line to ground, and send a huge fine (and possibly a disconnect notice) to the house that starts smoking...

      Much Higher infrastructure costs

      No such thing. All the extra equipment is purchased by the homeowner. The power company doesn't have to install any special equipment.

      and a requirement to buy their power at the highest cost.

      Not "the highest" but just the same rate they charge for it... and only until their bill gets down to zero, then it's FREE electricity for the power company.

      Wanting to recover their costs within the normal amortization period is not evil, its simple economics.

      They can either:
      1) Charge EVERYBODY a "connection fee" that is more in-line with base operating costs, and lower power rates to compensate, rather than hiding the cost in crazy billing, and introducing extra fees for special people.

      OR

      2) Raise everybody's electric rates slightly, and use that to continue to subsidize the connection costs for homeowners with solar installations.

      A special (flat) fee is completely inequitable...

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 1) by compro01 on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:30PM

        by compro01 (2515) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:30PM (#34901)

        Not "the highest" but just the same rate they charge for it... and only until their bill gets down to zero, then it's FREE electricity for the power company.

        1. Which is basically the highest rate. Power companies generally don't bother building generation runs at a loss.

        2. What company does net metering like that? Around here, if you have a net negative power usage for the month, it gets applied as a credit to your account. The general idea is that you build up a positive balance during your source's good months (e.g. March to October for solar) and then operate off that during bad months.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:18PM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:18PM (#34974) Journal

          There are many areas where negative balances are zeroed month to month.

        • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:11AM

          by evilviper (1760) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:11AM (#35370) Homepage Journal

          1. Which is basically the highest rate. Power companies generally don't bother building generation runs at a loss.

          No, it isn't. It's an average rate. If you actually had to pay the actual power rates for (e.g.) peaking plants, it would be astronomically high. Your power rates are absolutely LOWER than some of the power sources your utility draws from. They average out the prices between all the power sources, then add a profit margin, and that's your rate. It's not the lowest, and certainly not the highest.

          2. What company does net metering like that?

          Many of them do. In fact I believe the majority do so.

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:40PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:40PM (#35130) Journal

        Grid Tie systems are only used by the to feed power back to the utility when you have excess solar.
        They really don't protect the utility at all, and any responsible utility demands remote control of the shut off.

        Fining someone after the fact does not revive a dead lineman.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:24AM

          by evilviper (1760) on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:24AM (#35404) Homepage Journal

          Grid Tie systems are only used by the to feed power back to the utility when you have excess solar.
          They really don't protect the utility at all

          Do you usually pretend to be an expert and spout-off on subjects you know nothing about? Especially "correcting" statements of those who actually know what they're talking about?

          Grid-tie inverters are also designed to quickly disconnect from the grid if the utility grid goes down. This is an NEC requirement[2] that ensures that in the event of a blackout, the grid tie inverter will shut down to prevent the energy it transfers from harming any line workers who are sent to fix the power grid.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter [wikipedia.org]

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:58PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:58PM (#34850)

      " They can just decline to hook up to the grid."

      Yeah, look at what's happening to people who decide to go completely "off grid". Municipalities are going after them for things like trash collection or sewage fees. I'm sure when enough people have solar panels (not going to happen soon though if they keep thinking up new fees) lots of creative excuses will be invented to extract more money. At the end of the day, you see, it's all about the money. The "environment" is just a pretext. Better to charge you for your water and order you to ration than say, stop handing out new zoning permits. It's exactly the same racket that ISPs are involved in - trying to make finite capacity stretch as far as possible and charging an arm and a leg to everyone. Only the consequences here are when the power grid collapses, or the water supply collapses - catastrophic. I wonder what they'll do with their piles of cash when the city is on fire due to rioting.

      • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:18PM

        by Rivenaleem (3400) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:18PM (#34939)

        Here in Ireland we have a TV license. When more and more people cut the cord in favor of internet services, Netflix and the like, they change the law to make the TV license include any device "capable of receiving TV signal" which includes computers, as they could potentially receive online TV.

        And Ireland still gets different Netflix listing to the US, as RTE (Irish primary TV broadcaster) clearly doesn't want shows available online before they can be bothered showing them (often a year later than the US) locally.

        So yes, these guys are only interested in protecting their own income, and not about customers or the environment.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:53PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:53PM (#35138) Journal

        When I said Off the Grid, I meant the electrical grid.

        I had no intention of triggering a rant about hermits living in the woods dumping garbage in everyone else's garbage cans and leaching raw sewage into the ground water.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.