SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:31AM
The markets say that people want solar panels on their roof. I'm sorry the power companies are unhappy about the fact that people are using less of their product, but if solar is cheaper and better shouldn't coal generation capacity and the like go the way of the buggy whip market?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:06AM
Almost true. But... the problem here is not who and how generates the energy, but who pays the cost of network maintenance (assume that everybody will be generating some energy by whatever means; due to local differences between needs and generation, someone will still need to move this energy around).
For a long time, the two costs (energy and network maintenance) were amalgamated into one: it worked because the producers were a few, thus the cost of their "network segment connecting them to the grid" could be easily known). Now, you suddenly you have thousands of suppliers, some of them in double role (supplier and consumer): the situation is too complex.
But, to my mind, the answer is not persisting into this amalgamation and attempting contorted solutions out to derive "a fair pay"; instead, to keep the situation as close as possible to the "free market", charge everybody a fee for "service to property" and deal with the price/cost/amount of energy as a separate item.
You don't like the price for "grid connection service"? Disconnect from the grid and buffer your energy somehow.
But, no matter which alternative you choose, the cost/price of energy now becomes independent of the "network maintenance" service
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:19AM
GET OUT.
This makes far too much sense, represents both sides fairly, and attempts to implement a solution that may be too effective for government.
As a representative of the pitch fork and torches industry I order you to cease and desist or we will be forced to defend ourselves against your attack on the core American values of the free market and the common worker everywhere who as at risk from your radicalism.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:32AM
As a representative of pitch fork and torches industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 23 2014, @04:23AM
Frank? Strap Larry onto the lawyerpult.....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 23 2014, @05:23AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:11PM
"who pays the cost of network maintenance"
Someone should pick up their bill and take a look. Where I live, the customers pay separately for network and power.
It is of course different everywhere. It is theoretically possible that in OK people pay a flat $ per KWH and no connection fee. Sucks to be them, I guess.
I pulled my most recent bill, and pro-rated per days in a billing period, I pay exactly precisely 30 cents per day for the privilege of connection to the grid. So a 29 calendar day billing period listed as $8.70 for network fee.
For what its worth, natgas is more expensive at 31 cents per day for connection. During the summer, with my on demand tankless heater and no furnace use, the majority of my bill for natgas is connection fee.
30 cents per day doesn't sound like much, but if you figure outside plant needs some kind of maint activity every decade, which is horribly pessimistic even in this rainy windy climate, that multiplies out to well over a kilobuck per customer per maintenance / upgrade event. Yes I'm sure a big lightning/wind storm could be very expensive, but damage from them is also incredibly rare.
One interesting side effect of separation of network and power is I get to select my power source. I chose a 100% wind/solar provider. It doesn't cost very much at all more than the cost of the coal provider (used to be like 75% more, now its like 10% more, soon, trends indicate it'll be cheaper than selecting the coal provider...). I am pretty pissed off I can't select a 100% nuclear provider at 2 cents/KWH or whatever it is, but they just don't offer it. Probably just greenwashing BS anyway, but supposedly in the annual report, they pool the total KWH purchased wind/solar and then on an annual basis make sure they buy that much wind/solar from those providers (so on long term average I don't burn coal, but at any instant, especially a windless night, I do burn coal)