Sun Tax

[backpacker3]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As pointed out above, it's not a tax, it's a service cost for maintaining the connection to the grid. If you think wind farms (and all other producers) don't already pay for their grid connections, that only demonstrates your ignorance.

Perhaps I should have pointed out my sarcasm?

[darcane]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The utility asserts that the cost of maintaining the infrastructure with grid-intertied customers is greater than the cost of a non-producing customer. The utility has the duty to charge customers based on the actual fixed and variable costs associated with delivering power and maintaining infrastructure. This is perfectly reasonable.

However, I fail to see how net-metering could cost an extra $4.65/mo to maintain the infrastructure. I'd like to see a non-biased explanation of how grid-intertie costs so much more in fixed costs, with all benefits and detriments accounted for.

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere that the net metering customers have a greater cost than other users, just that they don't pay it. I believe conventional customers would pay the $4.65/mo by it being bundled up in their per kWh rate. If the power company put a $4.65/mo infrastructure fee on EVERYONE's bill, and lowered the cost per kWh to equal out, I bet the complaints would go away.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by darcane

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere that the net metering customers have a greater cost than other users, just that they don't pay it. I believe conventional customers would pay the $4.65/mo by it being bundled up in their per kWh rate. If the power company put a $4.65/mo infrastructure fee on EVERYONE's bill, and lowered the cost per kWh to equal out, I bet the complaints would go away.

I like your answer better than mine.

My response was from the perspective of the way I am billed for electricity, which includes a $12 "basic charge" that covers the fixed expenses of the infrastructure and maintaining an account.

If a utility recovers fixed costs by incorporating them into the consumption charge, then it's not just the solar people that are shirking their fair portion of paying for infrastructure; it's anyone with less than average power consumption.

The proper way to bill a customer is a fixed monthly charge that covers all fixed costs. The usage charge should only include the variable costs of providing power.

As you stated, the utility could easily dispense of the complaints if your assumption is correct about fixed charges being paid for by the variable amount of energy consumed.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by darcane

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere that the net metering customers have a greater cost than other users, just that they don't pay it.

But there are issues with net metering customers (and power producers in general) that don't exist with customers that are consumers* only. The power that goes out has to match the system frequency, and there are potential issues with system powerflows & stability. (Or would be, if you had a lot of net metering customers dumping power to the grid.)

*At least residential customers. You can have major issues with large industrial users, too. For instance, back when I was doing that sort of thing, there was a company that wanted to build a steel recycling plant that used an electric arc furnace to melt scrap steel. Problem was that it would have browned out about a quarter of the state every time they started it up.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As pointed out above, it's not a tax, it's a service cost for maintaining the connection to the grid. If you think wind farms (and all other producers) don't already pay for their grid connections, that only demonstrates your ignorance.

Whether it's called a tax, or a service fee, or a maintenance charge it's just another way to suck more money out of the subscriber under a different guise. Government regulated utilities can get away with this because they are essentially monopolies with no competition. Any rate hikes or additional fees they request from the regulatory commission are always approved, never denied.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Whether it's called a tax, or a service fee, or a maintenance charge it's just another way to suck more money out of the subscriber under a different guise.

Ah, so you think all those wires got put up for free, and stay up without maintenance & repair? Well, next time you have a hurricane or something blow through your area, don't do like everyone else and start screaming 'cause your power isn't restored right away.

Any rate hikes or additional fees they request from the regulatory commission are always approved, never denied.

Simply not true, as any search of public records will show.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Ah, so you think all those wires got put up for free, and stay up without maintenance & repair? Well, next time you have a hurricane or something blow through your area, don't do like everyone else and start screaming 'cause your power isn't restored right away.

ROTFLMAO!!!

During a major hurricane here recently the local power company repaired NOTHING. They were totally unprepared. We waited two weeks with no power until power companies came from other states to do the repair work. Their overpaid flunkies stood around supervising - collecting fat salaries to look important.

The utility was so grossly incompetent (despite receiving continual rate and service increases) that they were recently taken over by a power company from a neighboring state.

Simply not true, as any search of public records will show.

Maybe not in your state, but in mine they are given whatever they want. They take the money and neglect required maintenance - then they come back asking for even more money - and they always get it.

[redneck]

.

Rachel Maddow: Oklahoma’s ‘sun tax’ law means it’s a threat to Koch Brothers’ allies

“Maybe this means that alternative energy — like solar energy — is now viable enough to be an actual threat to the bottom line of the oil and gas and coal industries. We say it’s the four stages, right? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Well, solar has apparently moved on from being ignored or laughed at, and now they’re fighting it.”

So, is this where it's all headed...???


The Solar Powered Death Spiral For Utilities Begins – In Hawaii





Which, has already lead to this...

With their dread power that will "destabilize" the power consumption (if not disappear), someone against what logic dictates, has proposed burying the photovoltaic industry (now it is more necessary than ever) in a bottomless pit, sometime in 2010 someone has decided to privatize the sun .... yes yes you read correctly, in Spain totally unlike Europe, a toll who generate electricity is imposed and injected to the line ... instead of receiving a profit, but that's not all, if you get caught collecting photons of sunlight for your own use you can drop a fine of 30 million euros. Such as if it were a drug. Commit the sacrilege of being independent can be very expensive energy, the sun is now only for the privileged few and electric companies in which directors are of ex-presidents and ex-ministers dualistic ppsoe party.

Click on the below link.

Google Translate



>

[darcane]

Originally Posted by redneck

So, is this where it's all headed...???


The Solar Powered Death Spiral For Utilities Begins – In Hawaii

Utilities rely on large numbers of customers to pay for the gigantic fixed cost infrastructure required to deliver energy to your home. The first 80% of customers is important – but the last 20% of customers are the most important to utilities. They need every customer in their range to participate and pay for the huge infrastructure costs. Utilities can then spread the massive costs of power plants, power lines, and last mile maintenance across the entire pool of paying customers.

Solar disrupts this business model entirely. Solar vastly reduces the energy usage from some customers, and therefore reduces the amount these customers pay to support the infrastructure. Those major fixed costs the utilities must pay – such as the loans to pay for power plants and infrastructure – do not go down at all when people switch to solar.

These fixed costs must then be distributed among a smaller client base. This causes energy prices to go up for the remaining customers. Of course, this just makes solar more attractive to the remaining customers for the utility.

This supports my earlier assumption. Separate the fee to pay the fixed costs of the infrastructure and have all customers pay that, and the "death Spiral" all goes away. That's all this "Sun Tax" is doing.

[jamesqf]

Except it just ain't so. There are two ways you as a homeowner can do solar. You can be connected to the grid, or you can spend a lot of money on batteries, inverters, and other things needed to go off the grid. (Or the third way: just don't use electricity when the sun isn't shining :-))

Now if you choose to be connected to the grid, you need to recognize that it isn't free: there are real costs associated with its operation & maintenance. To date, those costs have usually been collected as a per kWh charge. In retrospect that was probably a mistake, because it created the impression that the grid WAS free, and so people with grid-tied solar, and people like me who just don't use much electricity, arguably got away with paying less than their fair share. Indeed, people whose solar panels generated more than they used were even subsidized, since they got all the benefits of the grid tie for free.

So this is what the argument is: not a new 'Sun Tax', but a realization that solar is growing to the point where it no longer needs the subsidy, and should pick up a share of the grid cost.

*Note that the same logic applies to paying for roads with a gas tax. Since (at 70+ mpg in the Insight) I use much less gas than the average person to travel the same number of miles, my road use is being subsidized by all the SUV and oversized pickup drivers :-)