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, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:42AM
Now, if the problem is strictly maintenance cost, then wouldn't it be fairer to itemize for all consumers the delivered energy and network maintenance as two separate entries? Me thinks it will be easier for the energy provider/retailer to figure out the costs.
Consume or not, if you have a live powerline to your property, you pay for its maintenance. Push energy back, you'll be paid for the energy but you will have to pay for the line/network maintenance.
It certainly is so in other parts of this world [vic.gov.au] (look on page 2 and you'll see "Service to property charges" itemized separately).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Turbidity on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:49AM
Exactly - this is the way to do it if your goal was not to discourage solar adoption. The fact is that utilities need to adapt to become backbone infrastructure providers and power brokers.
(Score: 1) by fnj on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:00AM
They already do that where I am in the US. I'd be suprised if they don't already do that everywhere in the US. So it looks like the Oklahome legislature is an ass.
(Score: 1) by dak664 on Wednesday April 23 2014, @02:22PM
The flip side of recovering maintenance cost from kWh usage is that consumers with higher-than-average use are paying *too much* for the infrastructure. Charging realistic amounts for each separately could benefit them as much or more as the PV producers.
Power companies used to apply an "energy conservation discount" to high kWh users, probably rebating some of the excess maintenance charge along with the desirable (20 years ago) effect of encouraging consumption. Don't think they could get by with that now, but apparently today's big users are perfectly happy to pay more then their fair share.