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: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:44PM
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
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
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
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
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 🏳️🌈