Got my CPS PV solar rebate approved

[boutons_deux]

The U.S Has More Solar Workers Than Coal Miners

Though solar power is still far from surpassing coal as America’s primary energy source, the number of people employed by the solar industry has surpassed the number of coal miners. The non-profit Solar Foundation estimates that there are about 142,000 people in the U.S. workforce who spend “at least 50% of their time supporting solar-related activities,” according to Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-has-more-solar-workers-than-coal-miners-2014-7).

So what does this mean for the future of energy in America? Quite simply put, it highlights how solar power is growing at a rapid pace, with record-breaking 43 GWH estimated to be installed around the world this year (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/20/2014-solar-market-predictions-abound-ihs-mercom/), and the U.S. is estimated to make up about 6.6 GWH of those new installations.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/22/u-s-solar-workers-coal-miners/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[boutons_deux]

Arizona Solar Property Tax Battle — SolarCity & SunRun Sue

Residential leasing companies SolarCity and SunRun filed a lawsuit on June 30th against the Arizona Department of Revenue. The legal dispute is filed in opposition to property taxes levied onto leased PV systems in Arizona. Affirmations came independently from each company that the complaint was filed and delivered a replica of the official documents.

This taxes are a hindrance to the development with rooftop solar, and seemingly an unlawful one. How does the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) presume that solar energy equipment is taxable if leased? The amount, 20% of the solar power system’s depreciated cost, ends up being about $152 a year for an average solar customer.

A law firm hired by SolarCity and Sunrun argues that third-party PV systems should not be subject to property taxes, since they are not part of the property owner’s… property. SolarCity notes that the tax will limit Arizona’s solar PV market.

Homeowners in Arizona, a state that was the nation’s fourth-largest market for residential, commercial, and institutional PV in 2013, are economically challenged with this change. Roy L Hales of CleanTechnica (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/solarcity-and-sunrun-vs-the-arizona-department-of-revenue/) points out that 85-90% of the state’s rooftop solar installations are leased, rather than owned. It’s no secret that a new tax could have a strong negative impact.

Hales further explains: “The Arizona Legislature has made it clear that the Subject Property, when used ‘primarily for on-site consumption’ of the electricity generated by such property, is ‘considered to have no value and to add no value’ to the property on which it is installed, and thus it should not be separately assessed for property tax purposes.”

http://solarlove.org/arizona-solar-property-tax-battle-solarcity-sunrun-sue/

EEI/ALEC/Repugs will try any and all tactics to kill competition from distributed solar.

[boutons_deux]

One of the BIG LIES of EEI and centralized power industry is that solar and wind power are not stable, but something weird happened in Germany, and it wasn't destabilization of the German grid.

Germany Added A Lot Of Wind And Solar Power, And Its Electric Grid Became More Reliable (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/12/3470070/germany-reliable-grid-renewables/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Screenshot-2014-08-07-15.47.48-638x479.png


To hear its critics (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/) tell it, Germany’s ambitious push to switch over to renewable energy has delivered an electrical grid that’s capricious, unreliable, and prone to blackouts. But according to data highlighted (http://www.theecoreport.com/green-blogs/technology/energy/utilities-energy-energy-articles/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-most-efficient-grids/) by ECO Report last week, the reality on the ground couldn’t be further from that caricature.

Specifically, the availability of electricity in Germany was lost only for an average of 15.91 minutes per customer in 2012, according to figures from the Council of European Energy Regulators. That’s far better than the United States, which saw its electricity become unavailable for a whopping 244 minutes per customer in 2008. Germany also did significantly better than the United Kingdom (lost 81.42 minutes per customer in 2008), the Netherlands (lost 33.7 minutes per customer) and France (lost 95.1 minutes per customer). Of all the countries tracked, Japan and Singapore are the only two with grid reliability to match Germany’s.

And the country has actually maintained this record for several years: 2008 was the last year in Germany when the amount of minutes lost per customer breached 16.

ECO Report pointed to a recent article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/german-utilities-bail-out-electric-grid-at-wind-s-mercy.html) in Bloomberg as an example of the standard story on Germany. The argument goes that by making a big policy push to move the electrical grid onto to renewables like solar and wind — which produce power intermittently, since no one can control when the sun is out or the wind blows — and by making the purely political decision to phase out its nuclear fleet following the Fukushima disaster, Germany has left itself without the kind of reliable baseload power that can only be provided by nuclear reactors or fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.

As Bloomberg points out (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/german-utilities-bail-out-electric-grid-at-wind-s-mercy.html), Germany’s domestic electricity has become far more dynamic. Twenty of the country’s biggest utilities are now earning fees in the balancing market, an exchange where firms can earn additional profits by pledging to add or cut electricity within seconds to keep the power system stable. That’s double the amount of utilities that were participating in the balancing market just back in September — and the fees provided by the market can pay utilities as much as 400 times what they’d usually earn with wholesale electricity prices.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/12/3470070/germany-reliable-grid-renewables/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[boutons_deux]

esp in Red States where Repugs say they hate govt regulations...

Rules prevent solar panels in many states with abundant sunlight


http://www.trbimg.com/img-53e6cb02/turbine/la-na-no-solar-web/750/16x9

Florida is one of several states, mostly in the Southeast, that combine copious sunshine with extensive rules designed to block its use by homeowners to generate power.
States like Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — not known for clear, blue skies — have outpaced their counterparts to the south in the installation of rooftop solar panels.
While the precise rules vary from state to state, one explanation is the same: opposition from utilities grown nervous by the rapid encroachment of solar firms on their business.


The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there.

"We get all kinds of inquiries every day" from the South, said Will Craven, spokesman for SolarCity. "People there want to be our customers."
Florida, in particular, is known as the "sleeping giant" of his industry, Craven said. "It has a ton of sunshine, a ton of rooftops," he said. "But there is no rooftop solar industry in Florida."

When Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., installed solar panels a few years ago, for example, the local utility, Dominion Virginia Power, threatened legal action. The utility said that only it could sell electricity in its service area. The university and the solar firm it worked with had to change their lease arrangement and forfeit valuable tax credits.

Soon after, in South Carolina, objections from another utility forced the cancellation of about 80 contracts under which a solar firm had planned to provide panels free of charge to churches and school districts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html?track=rss#page=1

Thanks, Repugs! Always moving the country forward!

[TDMVPDPOY]

the govt down here is pulling out of solar power industry...lol invested 11b only to pull out what a bunch of wankers playing with taxpayers money

[boutons_deux]

How EVs Could Make Solar Viable Without Subsidies

Investment bank UBS says the addition of electric vehicles, and the proliferation of battery storage, will solve the problem of intermittency for rooftop solar and make it viable without subsidies. So much so, it says, that households will be able to budget for 12 years of “free electricity” for a 20-year solar system.

In a major report on the “revolution” that could hit energy markets any time soon, UBS says – as we report here (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ubs-time-join-solar-ev-storage-revolution-27742) – that the combination of EVs plus solar plus storage will deliver a payback time of 6-8 years by 2020 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ubs-time-join-solar-ev-storage-revolution-27742) – effectively making centralised fossil fuel generation redundant.

It says this is not understood by the utility industry or the market, because they are “not yet looking at the topics of solar, EVs and stationary batteries with a holistic view.”


http://i0.wp.com/reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/UBS-solar-EV-payback.png?resize=590%2C214 (http://i0.wp.com/reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/UBS-solar-EV-payback.png)

“Our proprietary model (above) shows it is the combination of the three that makes solar fully competitive and that has the potential to bring disruptive changes to the electricity sector.

http://i0.wp.com/reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ubs-EV-parity.png?resize=300%2C249

http://i0.wp.com/reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/UBS-balance-supply.png?resize=590%2C311

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/22/evs-make-solar-viable-without-subsidies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[boutons_deux]

Rooftop Solar May Reach Grid Parity In 25+ States By 2017


http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2014/08/States.png?resize=542%2C564

In just three years, new numbers tell us, more than half of the states in the US may have rooftop solar available at the same price as the local grid’s electric rates. And that’s even without considering state and local incentives!
The Cambridge-based Union of Concerned Scientists has just published a series of three quick infographics. Here’s what they show:


By 2017, more than half the states could have rooftop solar as cheap as local electricity prices.
Installing rooftop solar has never been more affordable.
The number of households with rooftop solar is skyrocketing.

http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2014/08/Rooftop-cost.png?resize=545%2C609

http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2014/08/Households.png?resize=550%2C644

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/20/rooftop-solar-may-reach-grid-parity-25-states-2017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[RandomGuy]

The U.S Has More Solar Workers Than Coal Miners

Though solar power is still far from surpassing coal as America’s primary energy source, the number of people employed by the solar industry has surpassed the number of coal miners. The non-profit Solar Foundation estimates that there are about 142,000 people in the U.S. workforce who spend “at least 50% of their time supporting solar-related activities,” according to Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-has-more-solar-workers-than-coal-miners-2014-7).

So what does this mean for the future of energy in America? Quite simply put, it highlights how solar power is growing at a rapid pace, with record-breaking 43 GWH estimated to be installed around the world this year (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/20/2014-solar-market-predictions-abound-ihs-mercom/), and the U.S. is estimated to make up about 6.6 GWH of those new installations.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/22/u-s-solar-workers-coal-miners/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Interesting. Coal interests will now be facing some serious money challenging them in their control of Congress.

[boutons_deux]

Interesting. Coal interests will now be facing some serious money challenging them in their control of Congress.

the coal companies killed coal jobs by moving to strip mining more than renewable energy ever could.

[boutons_deux]

As usual, Repug doing their very best, per strategy, to fuck things up for the 99%.

Push To Impose Extra Fees On Solar Customers Draws Outrage In Wisconsin (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/14/3567244/utility-fees-end-wisconsin-solar/)

A recent move by Wisconsin utility We Energies to not only raise electricity rates on all consumers but also to add an additional charge on those who produce their own energy and sell it back to the grid has sparked outrage within the state and beyond.

The plan (http://milwaukee.gov/milwaukeeshines/GoSolarHowto/EnergyEngagement.htm) would raise the “fixed charge” on all customers’ electric bills from $9 to $16 a month, as well as reduce net metering — a policy that enables customers with solar panels or other forms of distributed generation to sell their excess electricity back to the grid — and add a new charge on these electricity-generating customers.

The result of such a policy, said Matt Neumann, owner of Wisconsin-based SunVest, would be dramatic: “It would not only end solar but remove the economic viability for any renewable energy in Wisconsin.” Neuman, whose company is the largest solar installer in the state, said the demand charge of $3.80 per kilowatt (kW) per month works out to about $220 per year for a 5 kW system, a deterrent for potential solar customers and an unfair penalty for those who have already chosen to go solar.

It would not only end solar but remove the economic viability for any renewable energy in Wisconsin.And by increasing fixed charges by 75 percent, Neumann said the utility is punishing everyone, even those who have taken steps to reduce their electricity consumption. The proposal also seeks to ban third-party ownership of renewable energy systems, meaning those customers who rent or lease, rather than owning the entire system outright.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/14/3567244/utility-fees-end-wisconsin-solar/

Thanks, Repugs and all you Repug voters!

[Wild Cobra]

Well Be-Shit...

That's what happens when you attack the fossil fuel sector. They needd to stay in business, and pass on costs to their customers.

The added monthly cost is a huge increase by percentage, but when is the last time it was raised? The $0.00528 /KWh ($3.80/KWmonth) charge for selling electricity back isn't excessive. They need to maintain the lines and \charge that by KWh used to the consumer, why not also charge for the power going back? If they are using no electricity, and only selling it back, they are not paying a distribution charge without this new fee.

[boutons_deux]

Well Be-Shit...

That's what happens when you attack the fossil fuel sector. They needd to stay in business, and pass on costs to their customers.

The added monthly cost is a huge increase by percentage, but when is the last time it was raised? The $0.00528 /KWh ($3.80/KWmonth) charge for selling electricity back isn't excessive. They need to maintain the lines and \charge that by KWh used to the consumer, why not also charge for the power going back? If they are using no electricity, and only selling it back, they are not paying a distribution charge without this new fee.

solar customers who sell their juice deliver it locally, not across 100s or 1000s of miles of transmission lines.

Centralized electricity operators have NOTHING but self-interest, and whore politicians they own (esp Repugs), in blocking distributed solar.

[Wild Cobra]

solar customers who sell their juice deliver it locally, not across 100s or 1000s of miles of transmission lines.

Centralized electricity operators have NOTHING but self-interest, and whore politicians they own (esp Repugs), in blocking distributed solar.
They are using the electrical companies assets that need to be maintained, which costs money.

I'll bet your monthly electric bill has a "distribution charge" on it. Actually, I just pulled up my online bill. I forgot about the transmission charge. Directly from my bill, meter read 9/10/14 for a 29 day billing.



Meter #IN<snip>,Schedule 07
Energy Charges
Basic Charge 10.00
Energy Use Charge
674.000 kWh x 6.24500¢ 42.09
Transmission Charge
674.000 kWh x 0.28300¢ 1.91
Distribution Charge
674.000 kWh x 3.79400¢ 25.57

79.57

Adjustments
102 RPA Exchange Credit ( 674.000 kWh x -0.79000¢ )* 5.32 CR
109 Energy Efficiency Funding Adj ( 674.000 kWh x 0.34000¢ ) 2.29
110 Energy Efficiency Customer Svc ( 674.000 kWh x 0.00700¢ ) 0.05
123 Decoupling Adjustment ( 674.000 kWh x 0.03400¢ ) 0.23
135 Demand Response ( 674.000 kWh x 0.02600¢ ) 0.18
137 Solar Payment Option Cost Recov ( 674.000 kWh x 0.03100¢ ) 0.21
144 Capital Projects Adjustment ( 674.000 kWh x 0.13200¢ ) 0.89
145 Boardman Decommissioning Adj ( 674.000 kWh x 0.02700¢ ) 0.18

1.29 CR

Taxes and Fees
City of Portland Tax (1.5%) 1.12
Multnomah County Tax (0.189%) 0.14
Low Income Assistance 0.84
Public Purpose Charge (3%) 2.30

4.40

Current Charges 82.68

Whoop-t-do... The article is complaining about an additional 0.52800¢ per KWh...

Thank-you for pointing out the transmission charge is source to grid charges. They are small compared to local distribution... i.e. distribution charges.

I wouldn't complain about a solar sourcing distribution charge that is only 14% of the receiving distribution charge. Now of course, it is inaccurate for me to compare my charges to those in another state, but I'll bet they aren't too much different.

When I clicked on one, I got all the definitions:


Energy Charges
Energy Charges include charges for the amount of energy you use, costs to bring the power to you, and any applicable Renewable Portfolio Option charges.

Basic Charge
The Basic Charge supports fixed costs such as meter reading, equipment, maintenance and billing necessary to serve customers, regardless of the amount of energy used. You pay the basic charge even if no electricity is used. It is a charge for having service available.

Energy Use Charge
The Energy Use Charge is the amount of electricity used multiplied by the cost for energy as stated in your rate schedule. For residential customers, kWh charges are on a tiered rate structure. You pay a lower price for the first 1,000 kWh you use each month. Energy charges for Time of Use and Flex PriceSM customers will be differentiated by the time of day and day of the week that the customer uses electricity.

Transmission and distribution charges
Transmission and distribution charges cover the cost of bringing power to you. The charges are broken out so you can see the cost of maintaining the utility poles, lines, substations, transmission towers and other equipment.

Renewable Portfolio Options
If you opt to support Green SourceSM, Clean WindSM, or Healthy HabitatSM Renewable Portfolio Options, a separate charge for the option will appear on your bill.

Adjustments
Adjustments are listed separately from your energy costs for transparency and because they often change. Some will eventually go away while new ones may be added. Others may periodically change from charges to credits or credits to charges.

102 Regional Power Act Exchange Credit (BPA Subscription Power Credit)
This credit was designed to give residential customers of investor-owned utilities access to the low-cost power of the Columbia River federally owned hydro-power system. For residential customers, this credit is on a tiered rate structure. PGE gains no additional revenues or profits from this adjustment; the law requires PGE to pass the benefits directly through to our customers.

105 Regulatory Adjustments
This adjustment collects or refunds miscellaneous items.

108 Public Purpose Charge (3 percent)
This charge will continue until January 1, 2026 for the purpose of funding energy efficiency, renewable resources, low-income energy efficiency, and housing and energy efficiency in schools. The public purpose charge is mandated by Oregon statute. PGE does not keep this money; PGE collects from customers and then passes the amount collected to various organizations responsible for these programs, such as the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the Energy Trust of Oregon.

109 Energy Efficiency Funding Adjustment
This adjustment is to fund additional energy efficiency measures for the benefit of PGE’s customers pursuant to the Oregon Renewable Energy Act through programs administered by the Energy Trust of Oregon.

110 Energy Efficiency Customer Service
This adjustment is to fund PGE activities associated with helping customers be more energy efficient. Such activities include project facilitation, technical assistance, education and assistance to support programs administered by the Energy Trust of Oregon.

115 Low Income Assistance
This fee is mandated by Oregon statute. The purpose of this fee is to provide stable funding for low income customers who cannot pay their electric bills. PGE does not keep this money but passes it on to the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services, which then distributes the funds to the various local Community Action Program agencies within PGE’s service territory.

122 Renewable Resources Automatic Adjustment Clause
This adjustment recovers the cost of renewable energy resource projects not otherwise included in the energy charge.

123 Decoupling Adjustment
This adjustment has two parts. For Schedules 7 Residential and 32 Small Nonresidential, Decoupling tracks and adjusts the fixed portion of revenues (transmission, distribution and fixed generation) associated with variations in energy use not attributable to weather. The Lost Revenue Recovery Adjustment portion of this tariff trues-up forecast and actual energy efficiency for applicable Large Nonresidential customers.

125 Annual Power Cost Update
This adjustment reflects annual changes in unit net variable power costs relative to the unit net variable power costs contained in base rates.

126 Annual Power Cost Variance Mechanism
This adjustment recognizes in rates, part of the difference for a given year between net variable power costs incurred and projected net variable power costs.

128 Short-Term Transition Adjustment
This adjustment applies to nonresidential customers who are on Schedules 515, 532, 538, 549, 575, 583, 585, 589, 591, 592, (Direct Access service) or have selected a PGE daily market pricing option (other than cost of service).

129 Long-Term Transition Cost Adjustment
This adjustment applies to Large nonresidential customers who are on Schedules 485 and 489.

135 Demand Response Cost Recovery Mechanism
This adjustment recovers the costs associated with PGE’s automated demand response program.

137 Solar Payment Option Cost Recovery
This adjustment recovers the costs associated with the Solar Payment Option pilot program.

140 Income Tax Adjustment
This adjustment implements the automatic income tax adjustment required by an Oregon Revised Statue and establishes the balancing account and automatic adjustment clause required by the Oregon Public Utility Commission.

145 Boardman Power Plant Operating Life Adjustment
This adjustment establishes the mechanism to implement in rates, the revenue effect of a Public Utility Commission-authorized change in the Boardman Power Plant’s assumed end of life year of 2040 to an end of life year of 2020.

[CosmicCowboy]

Here is the gauge on my house. Summertime I am returning a negligible amount of electricity to the grid, and if I do, my neighbor is using it so they don't have to transmit so much from the power plant.

http://egauge4225.egaug.es/

[boutons_deux]

Like water and roads, electricity companies should not be investor-owned/for-profit. National them all AND the national grid.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like water and roads, electricity companies should not be investor-owned/for-profit. National them all AND the national grid.

fucking communist.

[boutons_deux]

fucking communist.

heavily regulated capitalism and financce have roles, but unregulated American capitalism is fucking us and the environment hard and deep.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nationalizing private companies is what third world banana republics do.

[boutons_deux]

Nationalizing private companies is what third world banana republics do.

investors, finacial secotrs, oligarchs, mega-corps, monopolies fucking Americans and their environment is what America does.

[CosmicCowboy]

sucks to be poor pitiful Boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the gauge on my house. Summertime I am returning a negligible amount of electricity to the grid, and if I do, my neighbor is using it so they don't have to transmit so much from the power plant.

http://egauge4225.egaug.es/
That's cool. I believe you showed us that once before.

Looks like your AC uses 4,000 watts!

Yes, I understand the distribution isn't far, but they have to charge something for those who are always feeding rather than using. They still have to maintain the lines.

Is the 1/2 cent per KWh really excessive?

[Wild Cobra]

sucks to be poor pitiful Boutons.

Yep.

I'll pay have for a one way trip to Cuba for him if he stays there.

Will you splurge for the other half?

[boutons_deux]

The Growth Of Residential Solar Energy

http://cleantechnica.com/files/2014/09/growth-residential-solar-energy.jpg

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/17/growth-residential-solar-energy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[boutons_deux]

Solar power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it

If you ask the people who run America's electric utilities what keeps them up at night, a surprising number will say solar power. Specifically, rooftop solar.



That seems bizarre at first. Solar power provides just 0.4 percent (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf) of electricity in the United States — a minuscule amount. Why would anyone care?

But utilities see things differently. As solar technology gets dramatically cheaper (http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/Tracking%20the%20Sun%20VII_Report_0.pdf), tens of thousands of Americans are putting photovoltaic panels up on their roofs, generating their own power. At the same time, 43 states and Washington DC have "net metering" laws (http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/net_metering_map.pdf)that allow solar-powered households to sell their excess electricity back to the grid at retail prices.

That's a genuine problem for utilities. All these solar households are now buying less and less electricity, but the utilities still have to manage the costs of connecting them to the grid. Indeed, a new study (http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/LBNL%20PV%20Business%20Models%20Report_no%20report %20number%20(Sept%2025%20revision).pdf) fromLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory argues that, without policy changes, this trend could soon put utilities in dire financial straits. If rooftop solar were to grab 10 percent of the market over the next decade, utility earnings could decline as much as 41 percent.

To avoid that fate, many utilities are now pushing (http://washingtonexaminer.com/clouds-darken-over-solar-subsidies/article/2553430) for reforms that would at least slow the breakneck growth of rooftop solar — say, by scaling back those "net metering" laws. And that's opened up a war with many fronts. There are solar advocates who'd prefer not to see any changes. There are conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushing to pare back solar subsidies.

And there are even Tea Party groups now defending solar. Meanwhile, state regulators are struggling to find compromises that would both allow solar to expand but also ensure that there's enough money to maintain the existing grid.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6849723/solar-power-net-metering-utilities-fight-states

[Wild Cobra]

Subsidies should be eliminated.

[boutons_deux]

Subsidies should be eliminated.

even for BigCarbon?

[Wild Cobra]

even for BigCarbon?

If they exist, yes!

[boutons_deux]

If they exist, yes!

You Lie, they exist, to enrich the biggest, most profitable industry on the planet.

[Wild Cobra]

You Lie, they exist, to enrich the biggest, most profitable industry on the planet.
Why do you continue to make yourself irrelevant?

[CosmicCowboy]

I love big carbon. I'm investing in LNG terminals.

[RandomGuy]

I love big carbon. I'm investing in LNG terminals.

A very good bet, IMO. Europe will be willing to pay a good premium for energy security, after the ruskies shut them down this winter.

[TDMVPDPOY]

for those that bought a system

how big is ur system kw?

how much does it generate per day? enough for ur needs?


ps. i just bought a house...thinkn of installing a system also...looks cheap since i spend about 1600 per year on electricity bills...

[boutons_deux]

for those that bought a system

how big is ur system kw?

how much does it generate per day? enough for ur needs?


ps. i just bought a house...thinkn of installing a system also...looks cheap since i spend about 1600 per year on electricity bills...

City Public Service energy bills here in SA have a bar graph of energy consumption in KWH per month, for previous 12 months.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/StartHere/GRIDINTERTIED/GRIDINTCalculator.html

[CosmicCowboy]

A very good bet, IMO. Europe will be willing to pay a good premium for energy security, after the ruskies shut them down this winter.

Meh...the whole world is converting to NG power plants.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-26/russia-ukraine-reach-preliminary-agreement-on-interim-gas-price.html

http://rt.com/business/193432-ukraine-statoil-norway-moscow-experts/

[CosmicCowboy]

for those that bought a system

how big is ur system kw?

how much does it generate per day? enough for ur needs?


ps. i just bought a house...thinkn of installing a system also...looks cheap since i spend about 1600 per year on electricity bills...

Mine is a 4KW system and saves about $100 a month on utility bills.

[RandomGuy]

Meh...the whole world is converting to NG power plants.

Eyup.

There was an interesting article in Bloomberg I think, that was talking about what the Israelis were doing with theirs. They built four desalinization plants, and are now in the process of exporting water to their neighbors.

[boutons_deux]

http://d8dialogues.blogspot.com/2014/10/vista-ridge.html

TPR had quite long program on the Vista Ridge project.

http://tpr.org/search/google/vista%20ridge?query=vista%20ridge&cx=010251366440257945544%3Aaa_s0mku2mm&cof=FORID%3A11&sitesearch=


SAWS looks at ocean desal for 2040-2070. yeah, it's gotta be pumped up 700 ft from the Gulf, but, what the hell, it's an infinite supply. Power the desal and pumping with solar and wind.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Eyup.

There was an interesting article in Bloomberg I think, that was talking about what the Israelis were doing with theirs. They built four desalinization plants, and are now in the process of exporting water to their neighbors.

all that excess salt must go somewhere, lol flying over palestine with chemtrails?

[CosmicCowboy]

all that excess salt must go somewhere, lol flying over palestine with chemtrails?

http://gourmetforthebachelor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/kosher-salt.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://gourmetforthebachelor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/kosher-salt.jpg

:lmao

Props man. That was good funny.

[boutons_deux]

Australia’s Clean Energy Investment Plummets Below Algeria, Myanmar, Thailand, And Uruguay (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/06/3576255/australia-clean-energy-plummets/)

Australia’s investment in clean energy projects has slumped 70 percent since 2013, according to a new report (http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/global-clean-energy-investment-sustains-recovery/) by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). This means the country has slipped from the world’s 11th largest investor in clean energy to the 31st — below Algeria, Myanmar, Thailand, and Uruguay. This is the latest result of Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s broad attack on the country’s previously ambitious clean energy and climate goals. Abbott came into power in September 2013 and in July, Australia became (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/17/3461224/australia-repeals-carbon-price/) the first country to repeal its carbon price, despite the fact that it was successfully working to cut carbon emissions.

Kobad Bhavnagri, an analyst at BNEF, told (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/03/australias-investment-in-renewable-energy-slumps-70-in-one-year) the Guardian Australia that the country’s renewable energy sector is “in the doldrums” and that “the government’s position has caused this.”

Australia’s government “has had some pretty strong anti-renewables rhetoric, particularly anti-wind, and wants to close certain clean energy programs,” Bhavnagri said. “The review has been particularly protracted. The industry was fearful the recommendations would be extreme and they were. It has been shattering.”

Bhavnagri is referring to the government’s review of the country’s Renewable Energy Target, which mandates that 41,000 gigawatt hours of Australia’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. The government has said it will review, and possibly (http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/green-energy-companies-call-on-abbott-govt-to-end-ret-threat/story-fnihsps3-1227065855442?nk=d3cd6a5e6b54d565f37e5b03d753c358) scrap, the target in the coming months.

Under Abbott’s lead, just $193 million was invested in new large-scale clean energy projects in the third quarter of 2014, according to BNEF, bringing year-to-date investment to $238 million. By comparison, Canada has invested $3.1 billion in large clean energy projects so far this year.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/06/3576255/australia-clean-energy-plummets/

Thanks, BigCarbon-sucking Conservatives!

[boutons_deux]

Cheap Solar Power Just Became An Employee Benefit For More Than 100,000 People (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582763/cheap-solar-power-employee-benefit/)

On Wednesday, three major companies — Cisco Systems, 3M, and Kimberly-Clark — announced they will now give employees a deeply discounted way of buying or leasing solar panels for their homes.

Called the Solar Community Initiative, the program promises a flat rate that is on average 35 percent lower than the national average and roughly 50 percent less expensive than average electric utility rates. According to the announcement (https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/10/22/675116/10103803/en/First-Nationwide-Bulk-Purchase-Program-Will-Expand-Access-to-Clean-Solar-Energy.html), the offer will start as a benefit to more than 100,000 employees. If one percent choose to power their homes with solar, more than 74,500 metric tons of carbon emissions would be avoided each year.

Offered through Geostellar, a cost comparison site for solar panels, the program will also include options for employees’ friends and families in the United States and parts of Canada. The initiative was conceived and facilitated by the World Wildlife Fund.

“This takes the bulk purchase model from individual neighborhoods and organizations to a national scale,” Keya Chatterjee, senior director of renewable energy at WWF, said in a statement. “A coast-to-coast, low, flat rate helps mitigate two major barriers of solar adoption — complexity and price.”

The companies will offer a human resources intranet site that will provide a solar discount code and link them to Geostellar where online tools will help the employees determine their property’s solar potential.

homeowners paying an average of $147 a month for electricity would instead pay an average of $97 a month over 12 years if they financed the entire system, after which the payments would go to zero. The average base cost of a system will be $3 per watt, which is around 17 percent lower than Geostellar’s regular price and almost 34 percent lower than the average cost in the United States last year of $4.53, according to (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/business/solar-energy-discounts-become-employee-perk-in-new-program.html?_r=0) the New York Times.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582763/cheap-solar-power-employee-benefit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[boutons_deux]

Big utilities pushing into booming home solar market

For years, the utilities responsible for providing electricity to the nation have treated residential solar systems as a threat. Now, they want a piece of the action, and they are having to fight for the chance.
If utilities embrace home solar, their deep pockets and access to customers could transform what has been a fast-growing, but niche industry. Solar powers only half a million U.S. homes and businesses, according to solar market research firm GTM Research.

But utility-owned rooftop systems represent a change the solar installation companies who dominate the market don't want, and whether the two sides can compromise may determine if residential solar truly goes mainstream.

In Arizona, the state's largest utility has proposed putting solar panels on 3,000 customers' homes, promising a $30 monthly break on their power bills. In New York, regulators are weighing allowing utilities to get into the solar leasing business to meet the state's aggressive plan to incorporate more decentralized, renewable power onto the grid.

That's a change from the industry's recent skepticism of residential solar. Last year, for example, the Edison Electric Institute, a utility trade group, in a report described rooftop solar as a "disruptive challenge" that could squeeze revenue and profits as customers defected, leaving companies forced to maintain grids that serve all.

Residential solar grew 45 percent in the second quarter from the previous year and installations are expected to exceed 1 gigawatt this year, or about enough for 165,000 homes, according to GTM Research. That growth has been underpinned by government subsidies and falling equipment costs that have allowed startups to underprice utilities.

No-money-down solar leases also have made rooftop systems much more financially accessible, boosting demand.

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM...

Some utilities, like Edison International (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=EIX&lc=int_mb_1001) and NRG, already have entered the rooftop solar market through unregulated divisions, and many utilities have bought huge solar arrays.

But a regulated utility rolling out large amounts of rooftop solar is a new idea.

"Are they actually trying to deploy lots of rooftop solar or are they just trying to kill off the only competition they've ever had?"

"Safeguards against utilities squeezing out competition are important,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/us-utilities-solar-idUSKCN0IB16I20141022?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[Wild Cobra]

And boutons thinks big corp is only our for the profits.

[boutons_deux]

And boutons thinks big corp is only our for the profits.

:lol you're SO FUCKING STUPID

corps MUST seek profits above all, and here, after the first movers and innovators verified the business, they are also trying, in classic fashion, to weaken, kill the non-utility solar suppliers.

[Wild Cobra]

You always have a sinister excuse.

[boutons_deux]

You always have a sinister excuse.

with ALL powerful monopolies/cartels, esp the for-profit ones, assume their power is ALWAYS used sinisterly, self-servingly.

[Wild Cobra]

with ALL powerful monopolies/cartels, esp the for-profit ones, assume their power is ALWAYS used sinisterly, self-servingly.
So are the politicians you like to suck off.

[boutons_deux]

So are the politicians you like to suck off.

link?

behold, the WC bitch, slapped.

[boutons_deux]

In One Fell Swoop Obama Announces Solar Jobs For 50,000 Veterans and Takes On Climate Change

Yesterday, in one fell swoop, the President took decisive action to address both job creation for Veterans and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The White House announced (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-train-veterans-install-solar-panels-part-initiative-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions/) that beginning this fall the United States will launch a six-year job training program for America’s Veterans in the growing solar panel installation industry. Since Republicans have relentlessly obstructed jobs programs for America’s Veterans, the President took it upon himself to enact the program at American military bases and provide job training for at least 50,000 veterans. It is training for about 50,000 more Veterans than Republicans have provided despite several proposals and requests by the President to help America’s fighting men and women returning from war.

It is certain the Koch brothers will direct Republicans to launch an opposition campaign against both the Veteran’s job program and clean energy proposals. Through ALEC and the Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, there has been a multi-faceted assault on any renewable or clean energy programs across the nation because the Koch’s will not tolerate any energy source that cuts into the oil industry’s profits.

In fact, it was reported yesterday that in Texas, the state’s Republican comptroller said it is unfair that the wind energy industry received tax credits to grow the industry. Susan Combs singled out wind energy and said tax credits gave the industry “an unfair market advantage over the other power source.” :lol

Translation; the fossil fuel industry will not countenance competition despite its “unfair market advantage” amounting to billions-of-dollars in tax credits, billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, and freedom to pollute.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/24/fell-swoop-obama-announces-solar-jobs-50000-veterans-addresses-climate-change.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

What will TX Repugs do to block training of vets for the solar industry?

[boutons_deux]

Kochs and Walmart Clan Wage Dirty War to Stop You From Putting Solar Panels on Your Home

That prospect is enough to upset the Koch brothers, the heirs of the Walmart fortune and the utility industry, all which are trying to stamp out the rooftop solar movement or at least make a tidy profit penalizing the people who use it. With the help of powerful lobbyists and PACs like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, they are set to do battle in statehouses across the nation in 2015.

ALEC, which receives much of its funding from the utility industry and fossil-fuel investors like the Kochs, has long been an opponent of renewable energy (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/12/alec-calls-penalties-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy)and the Obama administration’s effort to reduce carbon emissions, is working with conservative activists and corporate interests to fight homeowners who are installing solar panels on their roofs (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/09/alec_climate_change_a_fight_over_rooftop_solar_pan els_could_decide_america.html). Calling people who install rooftop solar panel “freeriders,” another word for freeloaders, the pro-corporate group is actively promoting legislation (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0) in states to charge fees, even exorbitant ones, for rooftop solar installations.

Behind the lobbyists are the megarich Walton family. The majority owners of the Walmart retail chain also own several energy interests, including a 30% stake in First Solar, which makes the parts for huge commerical installations of solar panels that operate like power plants. A recent report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (http://ilsr.org/walton-report/) shows that the Waltons are giving lobbyist organizations millions to attack renewable energy laws at the state level. Their prime targets are the homeowners and businesses that opt for solar panels to provide their own electricity.

Tag-teaming with the Koch brothers and some of the nation’s largest utilities, the Waltons are not being shy in browbeating state lawmakers and agencies to roll back or throw out their renewable energy policies. Over the past few years, they’ve bankrolled campaigns against residential solar in Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington.

So, if you’re the CEO of a large energy utility owner like Duke Energy, or you’re the Kochs, the Waltons or any other person or institution heavily vested in energy, you’ve got millions, if not billions, of reasons to circumvent and gut the competition. And because your chief rival is not another corporation, but millions of individual homeowners and businesses, you can’t buy them out directly, so you buy out their government representatives. In this era of Citizens United, nothing is stopping you from dispatching swarms of lobbyists to butter up or even threaten politicians to do your bidding. In 2015, this is the American way.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-and-wal-marts-attempt-kill-solar-panels

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

They aren't against the new technology.

They are against subsidizing the people to buy it!

[TDMVPDPOY]

Boutons...

They aren't against the new technology.

They are against subsidizing the people to buy it!

the more ppl who adopt solar, the power companies will just pass on their losses to current customers with increase fees for services they didnt render...

its already happening down here...

green energy was meant to be a new industry, creating thousands of jobs, only to see a monkey looking faggot come into govt change everything not believing in alternative energy...

[boutons_deux]

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/solarchart1.jpg


http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/solarchart2.jpg

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/solarchart3.jpg

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/07/solar-revolution-here-to-stay/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=fada83e674-Top_News_1_8_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-fada83e674-85879165

And the Repugs, whores to BigCarbon, are on the wrong side history, as always.

[Wild Cobra]

And the Repugs, whores to BigCarbon, are on the wrong side history, as always.


That's a lie.

Nobody is stopping you from building, or stopping anyone else.

For the home consumer and commercial users, it takes out the distribution and transmission charges per kWh which is 1/3rd of my bill. When commercial entities do this, they must still get back the money from their customers.

Please explain how republicans and big business are on the wrong side of history beyond not wanting to pay subsidies using other tax payers money.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons...

They aren't against the new technology.

They are against subsidizing the people to buy it!


You're so fucking stupid.

EEI and all the centralized utilities (cartels, local monopolies), plus ALEC, etc, are dead set against letting distributed/rooftop solar disrupt their guaranteed cash flow from captive customers.

[CosmicCowboy]

centralized solar sucks. Our utility is paying 11 cents a KWH at the solar farm and still has to distribute it and is selling it at the wall plug for 9 cents.

[boutons_deux]

centralized solar sucks. Our utility is paying 11 cents a KWH at the solar farm and still has to distribute it and is selling it at the wall plug for 9 cents.

yep, that's one crazy deal. Makes wonder who got paid?

http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html

[boutons_deux]

That's a lie.

Nobody is stopping you from building, or stopping anyone else.

For the home consumer and commercial users, it takes out the distribution and transmission charges per kWh which is 1/3rd of my bill. When commercial entities do this, they must still get back the money from their customers.

Please explain how republicans and big business are on the wrong side of history beyond not wanting to pay subsidies using other tax payers money.

AZ and other states are PENALIZING solar residences with fees that make roof top solar pay back MUCH longer, so harder to justify.

CPS Energy proposed that, and Solar San Antonio got it killed.

[Wild Cobra]

yep, that's one crazy deal. Makes wonder who got paid?

http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html

It's reasons like this that so many people are against more of it!

The tax payers pay in the end. We keep getting shafted by the feds, and you want the feds to force more of this shafting...

You may like bending over for the feds, but I don't!

[Wild Cobra]

AZ and other states are PENALIZING solar residences with fees that make roof top solar pay back MUCH longer, so harder to justify.

CPS Energy proposed that, and Solar San Antonio got it killed.

I missed that in all the discussions I saw. What I saw is people crying because they don;'t get the same money back. You know, there are three primary costs for the electricity. The power itself, transmission fees, and distribution fees. Solar uses should only expect to get the power cost. The transmission and distribution fees, if anything, might be deducted, but they most certainly should get paid back for those.

[Wild Cobra]

yep, that's one crazy deal. Makes wonder who got paid?

Probably Al Gore et. al.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_03

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?geo=g&agg=0,1&endsec=vg

[CosmicCowboy]

I missed that in all the discussions I saw. What I saw is people crying because they don;'t get the same money back. You know, there are three primary costs for the electricity. The power itself, transmission fees, and distribution fees. Solar uses should only expect to get the power cost. The transmission and distribution fees, if anything, might be deducted, but they most certainly should get paid back for those.

I don't understand why you think we should have to pay extra fees for transmission. If I power my house by generating half of the power locally and then buy the other half from the utility then I should only have to pay transmission fees on the 1/2 I bought.

Lets say my house is 4000 sq feet and my next door neighbors house is 2000 sq. feet. Because I generate half my electricity from solar we end up buying the exact same amount of electricity from the power company. Why should I pay higher fees for "transmission" than my neighbor does just because I have a solar array?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't understand why you think we should have to pay extra fees for transmission. If I power my house by generating half of the power locally and then buy the other half from the utility then I should only have to pay transmission fees on the 1/2 I bought.

Lets say my house is 4000 sq feet and my next door neighbors house is 2000 sq. feet. Because I generate half my electricity from solar we end up buying the exact same amount of electricity from the power company. Why should I pay higher fees for "transmission" than my neighbor does just because I have a solar array?
I'm only saying that people shouldn't expect to get back the transmission and distribution fees when sending electricity back in the grid. I wouldn't expect, but I suppose there might be cause if they wanted to charge a transmission fee to send the electricity back to them, but I'm not sure about that.

At any rate, I don't think what energy you sell back should be any more than what they pay for it from their source. Should they be required to pay more just to benefit you?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm only saying that people shouldn't expect to get back the transmission and distribution fees when sending electricity back in the grid. I wouldn't expect, but I suppose there might be cause if they wanted to charge a transmission fee to send the electricity back to them, but I'm not sure about that.

At any rate, I don't think what energy you sell back should be any more than what they pay for it from their source. Should they be required to pay more just to benefit you?

what little I sell back goes right into my next door neighbors house. It doesn't have to come from the power plant.

[Wild Cobra]

what little I sell back goes right into my next door neighbors house. It doesn't have to come from the power plant.
So you wish for a case by case option? How much does such studies cost to review and implement? How many costumers would it affect?

You're a business man, try looking at it from their perspective. What would you do if you were in their shoes?

How about Scott's bar? Let's say for example he sells beer for $4.00 a bottle. If a regular customer starts bring his own beer, should Scott have to pay that customer $4.00 a bottle for what he doesn't drink? It might just be going to the guy at the next table.

[Th'Pusher]

So you wish for a case by case option? How much does such studies cost to review and implement? How many costumers would it affect?

You're a business man, try looking at it from their perspective. What would you do if you were in their shoes?

How about Scott's bar? Let's say for example he sells beer for $4.00 a bottle. If a regular customer starts bring his own beer, should Scott have to pay that customer $4.00 a bottle for what he doesn't drink? It might just be going to the guy at the next table.
:lol

cc why don't you call this dumbass the dumbass he is? You're not one to hold back on personal insults. It's your mo (particularly when you have no argument). You actually have an argument here. Resort to your chimpish ad hominem. It'll be funny.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

cc why don't you call this dumbass the dumbass he is? You're not one to hold back on personal insults. It's your mo (particularly when you have no argument). You actually have an argument here. Resort to your chimpish ad hominem. It'll be funny.

I just had to shake my head at that analogy. Besides, I'm crazy busy at work.

[Wild Cobra]

CC, instead of thinking you are entitled like liberals do, to free storage on the grid, how about checking out what these guys have:

https://ironedison.com/images/products/Iron%20Edison/USA/Size/Iron%20Edison%20USA%20Series%20NiFe%20Battery%201-2.jpg (https://ironedison.com/iron-edison-usa-series-nickel-iron-nife-battery)

https://ironedison.com/images/products/Outback/Outback%20Energy%20Cell%20Battery%20Rack%20Iron%20 Edison%20Lead%20Acid.jpg (https://ironedison.com/outback-battery-rack)

link in pic.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sheeeeut. I'm not moving to Idaho and going of the grid.

WC, one part you are forgetting is that our power company has a finite amount of generating capacity and our metropolitan are is growing like crazy. Having the solar supplement helps them to postpone building the next billion dollar power plant.

The other part you are forgetting is that in Texas, solar systems put out power right when the grid is stressed the most...in the afternoons when all the AC's are running full out to fight the heat.

[boutons_deux]

...in the afternoons when all the AC's are running full out to fight the heat.

there was a study that showed solar panels are more productive when oriented not due south but to the south and with a slight tilt to the west, so they are, in the Sun Belt, more productive mid, late afternoon when temps and A/C loads are max.

[boutons_deux]

Solar Is Creating Jobs Nearly 20 Times Faster Than Overall U.S. Economy

Despite attacks on clean, renewable energy (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/) around the country, creating uncertainty in the sector, job creation grew dramatically. It outperformed the slowly improving U.S. economy, creating jobs at nearly 20 times the rate of the overall economy.

Last year, jobs in solar increased by 21.8 percent, adding up to 31,000 new jobs in 2014 and bringing the total number of solar-related jobs in the U.S. to 173,800. That’s an increase of 86 percent since 2010. The vast majority—approximately 157,500— work 100 percent on solar activities.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/15/solar-industry-jobs/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=4df15f34d9-Top_News_1_15_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-4df15f34d9-85879165

Now, if only the Repugs, VRWC, ALEC, BigCarbon would stop trying to kill renewable energy.

[Wild Cobra]

Sheeeeut. I'm not moving to Idaho and going of the grid.

WC, one part you are forgetting is that our power company has a finite amount of generating capacity and our metropolitan are is growing like crazy. Having the solar supplement helps them to postpone building the next billion dollar power plant.

The other part you are forgetting is that in Texas, solar systems put out power right when the grid is stressed the most...in the afternoons when all the AC's are running full out to fight the heat.
Actually, I do understand that. I just don't think its right to expect the same money back as what you pay for it. At a minimum, there is a 4% loss of the power you generate before it makes it to your neighbor unless you are on the dame distribution transformer. I think that's unlikely. If we assume that you and half the other residents in your area generated enough solar power to feed the grid, and your neighbors who don't have solar, then the electric company would be making no money to maintain the distribution system between you and your neighbors. I think it's great that you can get some money back for your extra power, but seriously. Why should you get the same price as what you pay when you don't generate enough?

I find it irritating, that you, as a conservative, portray what I see as an entitlement mentality. Leave that entitlement whining to the libtards.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, I do understand that. I just don't think its right to expect the same money back as what you pay for it. At a minimum, there is a 4% loss of the power you generate before it makes it to your neighbor unless you are on the dame distribution transformer. I think that's unlikely. If we assume that you and half the other residents in your area generated enough solar power to feed the grid, and your neighbors who don't have solar, then the electric company would be making no money to maintain the distribution system between you and your neighbors. I think it's great that you can get some money back for your extra power, but seriously. Why should you get the same price as what you pay when you don't generate enough?

I find it irritating, that you, as a conservative, portray what I see as an entitlement mentality. Leave that entitlement whining to the libtards.

Glad to be an irritant. :lol And BTW, my neighbors transformer is on the same pole only about 2 feet from mine. Not much transmission cost THERE.

[boutons_deux]

There are now twice as many solar jobs as coal jobs


https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/solar-jobs-vertical_2.jpg?w=315&h=803

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-coal-economy-jobs/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

[Wild Cobra]

Glad to be an irritant. :lol And BTW, my neighbors transformer is on the same pole only about 2 feet from mine. Not much transmission cost THERE.
OK, and if your lines aren't very long to your fuse box your power to him might have only a 3% loss.

Who pays for the line maintenance?

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn, WC. This has gotten too stupid to even discuss. Therefore, you get to win the internet today by forfeit.

[Wild Cobra]

Damn, WC. This has gotten too stupid to even discuss. Therefore, you get to win the internet today by forfeit.
LOL...

Yes, it is, isn't it!

[boutons_deux]

Of course, it's a REPUG Congress, doing what it's paymasters want, now what We The People want.

Poll: Voters Want Pretty Much The Opposite Of What Congress Is Doing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/16/3612461/poll-voters-want-renewable-energy/)

A majority of U.S. voters think the government should be advancing policies that promote the growth of renewable energy, protect public lands, and strengthen protections against pollution of drinking water and air, according to a poll (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Public-Opinion-on-US-Energy-and-Environmental-Policy_slides.pdf) released Thursday by the Center for American Progress.

Conducted by national research firm Hart Research Associates, the poll of 1,101 American voters found that 72 percent strongly support more pollution controls, 70 percent strongly support protecting public lands like monuments and wildlife refuge areas, and 66 percent support the expansion of wind, solar, and renewable energy development. Sixty percent of voters surveyed also said they strongly supported setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — a number that rose to 82 percent when including voters who said they somewhat support that proposal.

As noted by the Center in its press release (https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/01/15/104581/release-cap-poll-finds-fossil-fuel-interests-dominate-agenda-of-new-congress-but-americans-favor-renewable-energy-environmental-protections/) accompanying the survey results, these opinions differ greatly from the policies being proposed and advanced by the Republican leaders of the new 114th Congress. Those include efforts to repeal (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/07/3590277/mcconnell-priority-rein-epa/) the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed limits on greenhouse gases from power plants; efforts to increase the amount of Canadian tar sands oil entering the United States via approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/09/3610151/house-approves-keystone-xl-for-10th-time/); and a bill to lengthen and complicate (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/330/committees?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22don+young%22% 5D%7D) the process for designating national monuments.

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cappoll4-638x399.jpgWhen it comes to energy and environment, large majorities of voters support progressive policy proposals, according to the poll.

CREDIT: CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

The poll, which had a 3.1 percent margin of error, also showed that the Keystone XL pipeline was a low priority for American voters concerned with energy issues. When asked a question about what Congress should be focusing on when it comes to energy policy, 11 percent said that they wanted more renewable energy, while 10 percent cited less dependence on foreign oil. Only 7 percent mentioned allowing the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CAPpoll-638x335.jpg

When thinking about energy or the environment,
voters want the president and Congress to focus on
alternative and renewable energy.




While some may argue that approving the Keystone XL pipeline would reduce dependence on foreign oil, that issue has been hotly debated (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/20/keystone-xl-pipeline-ad-suggests-canadian-crude-will-reduce-reliance-on-foreign-energy/), most notably because the oil that would be transported in the Keystone XL pipeline comes from Canada, a foreign country. Some have argued that the pipeline would reduce oil imports from the Middle East, but the Washington Post’s Fact Checker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/20/keystone-xl-pipeline-ad-suggests-canadian-crude-will-reduce-reliance-on-foreign-energy/) notes that the pipeline’s oil is expected to replace crude from Venezuela or Mexico. Either way, still foreign oil.

Achieving energy independence is one top priority for voters when it comes to energy policy, the poll said, but it also noted a sharp partisan divide when it comes to how energy independence can be achieved. Overall, more voters believe that can be accomplished by the development of America’s fossil fuel reserves as opposed to developing renewable energy resources, but only by a small margin — 44 to 41 percent. When divided by party, though, fifty-eight percent of Democrats believe renewable energy is the best way to go, while 60 percent of Republicans think more American fossil fuels should be developed. Independents are split on the issue, with 44 percent in favor of renewable and 43 percent in favor of fossil fuels.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CapPoll5-638x381.jpgThe poll showed sharp partisan divides on the best route to achieving U.S. energy independence.

CREDIT: CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

When the issue of energy independence is taken out of the equation, though, the poll showed that 87 percent of voters are at least somewhat in support of expanding developing of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources in the United States. An increase in the development of renewable energy is expected to be one effect (http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits) of the EPA’s proposed regulations on carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants. One of the ways states can meet their carbon reduction goals is to increase their use of energy efficiency targets and renewable energy.

As for the type of energy American voters most want to see expanded in the United States, solar topped the list, with 80 percent of voters saying it should be relied on more compared with other 9 percent of voters who said solar power should be relied on less. Seventy-three percent of voters said wind should be expanded, with only 14 percent of voters saying it should be cut back. Hydropower came in as the third most-recommended energy source for expansion, with 59 percent of voters wanting more and 10 percent of voters wanting less.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CAPpoll2-638x373.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/16/3612461/poll-voters-want-renewable-energy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

Repugs ideology:

privatize (fuck) lands

increase pollution by defunding, killing EPA

retard, penalize, block RET (renewable energy targets) and distributed solar

etc, etc, etc.

Repugs ALWAYS wrong, ALWAYS on the wrong side of history, ALWAYS against progress.

[Wild Cobra]

The idea itself is supported, until the details are revealed.

[boutons_deux]

Largest-ever study quantifies the value of rooftop photovoltaics


A multi-institutional research team of scientists led by the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkley Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), in partnership with Sandia National Laboratories, universities, and appraisers found that home buyers consistently have been willing to pay more for homes with host-owned solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems —averaging about $4 per watt of PV installed—across various states, housing and PV markets, and home types.

This equates to a premium of about $15,000 for a typical PV system.

The team analyzed almost 22,000 sales of homes, almost 4,000 of which contained PV systems in eight states from 1999 to 2013—producing the most authoritative estimates to date of price premiums for U.S. homes with PV systems.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-largest-ever-quantifies-rooftop-photovoltaics.html#jCp

[boutons_deux]

centralized solar sucks. Our utility is paying 11 cents a KWH at the solar farm and still has to distribute it and is selling it at the wall plug for 9 cents.

For comparison:

One of the biggest solar power stories of the past year — if not the biggest — was the record-low price of solar power that was bid in Dubai toward the end of the year. ACWA Power bid 5.98 cents per kWh (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/29/dubai-shatters-solar-tariff-records-worldwide-lowest-ever/), well below the cost of natural gas in the region (which is 9 cents per kWh).

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/24/cheapest-solar-world-michael-liebreich-interview-series/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

... includes a TX project selling KWH for $0.071

CPS REALLY made its owners, residents of San Antonio, a horrible deal.

[Wild Cobra]

I came across this by accident, and thought I would share:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR39TfpyAgY

[boutons_deux]

“There is significant momentum in Congress now for eliminating many of the 42 existing energy tax subsidies,”

with Republicans largely against subsidies for renewables and

Democrats largely against those for fossil fuels, "

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/worry-for-solar-projects-after-end-of-tax-credits.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Thanks, Repugs, y'all always fucking everything up.

[boutons_deux]

In 42 of the 50 biggest U.S. cities, rooftop solar is now cheaper than the grid!http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/01/solar-grid-parity-cities.jpg.650x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg


http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/42-of-50-biggest-us-cities-rooftop-solar-now-cheaper-grid.html

[boutons_deux]

Google invests $300 million in fund for residential solar power

Goggle Inc. is making another large investment in renewable energy (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27503195/google-buys-altamont-wind-energy-power-googleplex), but this time average homeowners could be the ones reaping the benefits.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based Internet search giant said Thursday it would invest $300 million in a new SolarCity Corp. fund that would help finance the installation of residential solar power systems.

Solar City said the fund would cover the cost of the installation, solar panels and other equipment. Homeowners either pay SolarCity for electricity produced by the solar panels or monthly rent for the panels if they are leasing.

The new fund will cover the upfront cost of solar panel installations for thousands of homeowners in 14 states including California, Google said.

“We’re happy to support SolarCity’s mission to help families reduce their carbon footprint and energy costs,” said Sidd Mundra, Renewable Energy Principal at Google. “It’s good for the environment, good for families and also makes good business sense.”

Google will be a tax-equity investor in the fund, meaning the company can claim a federal credit for 30% of the cost of the solar projects.
Tax equity investments in solar usually yield annual returns of 8% to 10%, though details of this particular deal are not being made public,

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-solar-invest-20150226-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Phase 3 of 400 MW Alamo Solar Project in Texas Now Online

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/27/phase-3-400-mw-alamo-solar-project-texas-now-online/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[boutons_deux]

Upcoming solar eclipse to wreak havoc on Germany's solar power output

The partial solar eclipse slated to take place throughout Europe on March 20 may delight skywatchers, but it's presenting a significant headache for the operators of Germany's electricity grid. The country is a world leader in solar energy, boasting a huge edge over the U.S. in installed solar power generation.

When the eclipse occurs between about 9:30 a.m. and 12 p.m., local time, on the 20th, electric utilities in Germany will have to contend with rapid swings in energy production. First, there will be a steep drop-off in generation, followed by a sudden spike.

These fluctuations, and how utilities choose to cope with them, provide a preview of what utilities in the U.S. and other nations face, as renewable energy production soars in coming decades, according to an analysis from Opower, a software company that uses data to help utilities improve the customer experience.

Germany gets about 7% of its electricity each year from solar panels, compared to 0.5% in the U.S., according to Barry Fischer, a writer and analyst at Opower. On the sunniest days, Germany can meet half of its electricity demand through solar power alone, he told Mashable in an interview.

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2015/03/upcoming-solar-eclipse-to-wreak-havoc-on-germanys-solar-power-output/905

[boutons_deux]

Shows utility PV at $0.11/KwH

Progress Report: Advancing Solar Energy Across America

http://energy.gov/articles/progress-report-advancing-solar-energy-across-america

CC, where did you get CPS paying $0.14? I found and E-N article whining about it at $0.11, vs much lower in CA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/CPS-Energy-s-high-cost-of-secrecy-4673087.php

My guess is that ALL of the CPS panels will be replaced before their 25-year guaranteed life span as huge breakthroughs in panel efficiency arrive in the next few years, making the less efficient panels uncompetitive.

[boutons_deux]

The One Chart That Shows Why 2014 Was a Breakthrough Year for Utility-Scale Solar in America

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/2014_PPA_Prices_Utility-Scale_Solar_580_383.png

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Post-2016_Utility-Scale_Solar_Market__580_382.png

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-one-chart-that-shows-why-2014-was-a-pivotal-year-for-us-solar

Better get your solar panels installed by end of 2016, because it's a safe bet that the Repugs, always fucking up America, will block extending both the solar and wind tax breaks, while increasing MIC corporate welfare spending by $50B+ per year.

[RandomGuy]

Better get your solar panels installed by end of 2016, because it's a safe bet that the Repugs, always fucking up America, will block extending both the solar and wind tax breaks, while increasing MIC corporate welfare spending by $50B+ per year.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

It will be a fairly safe bet. China is starting to scale back its coal use, as they have vastly overbuilt their steel-making capacity, and are pushing to produce electricity from less polluting sources, i.e. anything other than coal. This means that coal prices will start to fall and taper off, even more than they have now.

This will leave coal producers in the US in a bad position. They will be faced with utilities replacing aging coal plants with nat gas, wind and solar, while at the same time their export market will look to be hammered as well.

Places like India and Sub-Saharan Africa will reap the real benefit of this as they have yet to really build a lot of their infrastructure. Sheer economic growth will mean these countries will benefit from the West and China's knowledge and experience with such systems, i.e. they will get to bypass the coal phase almost entirely.

[boutons_deux]

What Would Happen If Wind Power Got The Same Tax Breaks As The Fossil Fuel Industry (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3632999/wind-can-grow-but-it-probably-wont/)

Oil and gas companies receive a number of permanent tax incentives (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/oil-exploration-tax-deduction-57139.html), totaling $18.5 billion in 2013, according to a report (http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdf) from the environmental group Oil Change International. Taxpayers also permanently subsidize (http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/coal-a-long-history-of-subsidies) some costs of the coal industry.

The historical reasoning for these tax breaks, according to the Houston Chronicle (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/oil-exploration-tax-deduction-57139.html), has been “to attract investment into an industry deemed high risk, and to promote employment.”

The wind industry, by contrast, has had a rough go of getting permanent tax incentives. Even before Republicans were in control of both chambers, Congress has repeatedly refused to revive the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), a $13 billion yearly tax break to the wind industry that has historically helped it compete with fossil fuels. The wind PTC is a subsidy that’s been built into the tax code since 1992 to encourage growth in the industry.

At one point, the PTC had a pretty good run. After it was reinvigorated by the 2009 stimulus, wind energy started booming. According to the AWEA, U.S. wind energy capacity saw a 140 percent growth rate from 25,000 megawatts (MW) to more than 61,000 MW since 2009. And that’s just capacity — the actual electricity generated from those turbines grew at a rate of 200 percent. In 2013, wind power accounted for 4 percent (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/wind/) of all electricity generated in the U.S.

But that tax credit was set to expire in 2012, and since then, Congress has been caught in gridlock over whether to renew it. It eventually expired at the end of 2013, and — coincidentally or not — wind has not been growing as fast (http://energy.gov/maps/wind-farms-through-years#buttn).

As it looks now, it’s unlikely that a Republican-controlled Congress will renew the PTC. Generally, Republicans oppose giving tax breaks to the wind industry on the grounds that they amount to a form a “welfare (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/02/3009401/tax-credits-wind-welfare/)” that unfairly props up an industry present in some states but not others.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3632999/wind-can-grow-but-it-probably-wont/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

But Repugs demanding the MIC corporate welfare budget be increased by $50B+ / year

F-35? :lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

hey you clowns that are into energy efficiency...

how about water? u guys have any system installed at home?

[CosmicCowboy]

Those are pretty easy to do but the payback is pretty long without subsidies. You still have to have conventional heat source to supplement in cold cloudy weather and freeze protection can get complicated.

[boutons_deux]

hey you clowns that are into energy efficiency...

how about water? u guys have any system installed at home?

The solar water heating I looked at here in TX was VERY expensive, right up there with the solar panel installation, so made no sense with the low price of gas water heating.

[Wild Cobra]

The solar water heating I looked at here in TX was VERY expensive, right up there with the solar panel installation, so made no sense with the low price of gas water heating.

LOL...

So, you aren't one who practices what he preaches...

[boutons_deux]

Small Solar Surging: 13% Of New US Power Plant Capacity In 2014


http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/03/usa-new-power-plant-capacity-additions-2014-ILSR-v3-570x428.jpg


http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/us-power-plant-capacity-additions-2003-2014-ILSR-1024x768.jpg

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/16/small-solar-surging-13-new-us-power-plant-capacity-2014/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

expect a huge surge over the next 20 months as the Federal tax credit expires at end of 2016 and Repugs refuse to renew it.

[boutons_deux]

Solar eclipse is unprecedented test, says European power grid

The loss of solar power generation during Friday’s eclipse will be an unprecedented test for the European grid but is very unlikely to cause problems for electricity users, according to electricity providers in the UK and Europe (http://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news).

If the weather is clear on Friday morning the European grid will suddenly lose the equivalent generation of eight to ten very large coal power plants as the moon passes between solar panels and the sun. The loss of generation will occur over a much shorter period than it takes to get dark at night. The eclipse will cover about 85% of the sun (http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/london) from the centre of the viewing zone.

The event presents a serious challenge to a grid designed originally to carry consistent power supplied by large power stations. Technicians from theEuropean Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (Entso-E) (https://www.entsoe.eu/news-events/announcements/announcements-archive/Pages/News/20-March-Solar-Eclipse.aspx)have been working for more than a year on how to cope with the potential loss of 35,000MW of generating capacity.

Forecasters are predicting largely cloudy weather for much of Europe, meaning the dip in power (http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/feb/25/solar-eclipse-europe-darkness-video) will be less pronounced than it would be in sunshine. But a spokeswoman for Entso-E said engineers were “very confident” the system would cope, even if conditions are sunny.

“The risk is serious but we are taking all measures to mitigate them. It is very unlikely there will be any incidents,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/18/solar-eclipse-unprecedented-test-european-power-grid

[boutons_deux]

Solar Power Battle Puts Hawaii at Forefront of Worldwide Changes

for 18 months or so, the state’s biggest utility barred him and thousands of other customers from getting one, citing concerns that power generated by rooftop systems was overwhelming its ability to handle it.

Only under strict orders from state energy officials did the utility, the Hawaiian Electric Company, recently rush to approve the lengthy backlog of solar applications, including Mr. Akamine’s.

It is the latest chapter in a closely watched battle that has put this state at the forefront of a global upheaval in the power business. Rooftop systems now sit atop roughly 12 percent of Hawaii’s homes, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, by far the highest proportion in the nation.

Other states and countries, including California, Arizona, Japan and Germany, are struggling to adapt to the growing popularity of making electricity at home, which puts new pressures on old infrastructure like circuits and power lines and cuts into electric company revenue.

As a result, many utilities are trying desperately to stem the rise of solar, either by reducing incentives, adding steep fees or effectively pushing home solar companies out of the market.

In response, those solar companies are fighting back through regulators, lawmakers and the courts.

The shift in the electric business is no less profound than those that upended the telecommunications and cable industries in recent decades. It is already remaking the relationship between power companies and the public while raising questions about how to pay for maintaining and operating the nation’s grid.

The Edison Electric Institute, the main utility trade group, has been warning its members of the economic perils of high levels of rooftop solar since at least 2012, and the companies are responding.

In February, the Salt River Project, a large utility in Arizona, approved charges (http://www.srpnet.com/newsroom/releases/022615.aspx) that could add about $50 to a typical monthly bill for new solar customers, while

last year in Wisconsin, where rooftop solar is still relatively rare, regulators approved fees that would add $182 a year for the average solar customer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

CPSenergy is municipally owned, but because it enriches SA treasury by $200M - $300M per year, SA is reluctant to push CPSEnergy towards aggressive policies pushing distributed, rooftop solar.

CPSenergy proposed penalizing rooftop solar, but it was defeated.

Naturally, Repug states fucking stuff up. TX is way behind in rooftop solar, as well as Repugs wanted to kill stimulus for wind power.

[Wild Cobra]

CPSenergy proposed penalizing rooftop solar, but it was defeated.

How would they be penalized?



Naturally, Repug states fucking stuff up. TX is way behind in rooftop solar, as well as Repugs wanted to kill stimulus for wind power.

Is there some law keeping people from installing them?

[boutons_deux]

How would they be penalized?

Is there some law keeping people from installing them?

Like AZ investor-owned electric utility, CPS was going to penalize rooftop owners with a monthly fee.

There's no law against it, but apart from hippie, educated, blue Austin's municipally owned electric utility, there's not many if any cities in TX promoting rooftop solar.

Of course, the utility-protecting TX Repugs got nothing serious going, if anything, at the state level. But Repugs give about $20B/year to other TX industries.

I expect the Congressional Repugs next year will kill the federal tax break for rooftop solar that expires after 2016, because Repugs always fuck up everything they can.

[Wild Cobra]

Like AZ investor-owned electric utility, CPS was going to penalize rooftop owners with a monthly fee.

What type of fee? What does it pay for?



There's no law against it, but apart from hippie, educated, blue Austin's municipally owned electric utility, there's not many if any cities in TX promoting rooftop solar.

What type of promotions are you speaking of? Subsidies? Other people's money?

If solar is so great, why does it need subsidies?



Of course, the utility-protecting TX Repugs got nothing serious going, if anything, at the state level. But Repugs give about $20B/year to other TX industries.

How do yhet give it to them? Is it a subsidy, or a tax break?



I expect the Congressional Repugs next year will kill the federal tax break for rooftop solar that expires after 2016, because Repugs always fuck up everything they can.

If solar pays for itself, why should there be a tax break, and why should people who can afford such things be treated special?

[boutons_deux]

What type of fee? What does it pay for?


What type of promotions are you speaking of? Subsidies? Other people's money?

If solar is so great, why does it need subsidies?


How do yhet give it to them? Is it a subsidy, or a tax break?


If solar pays for itself, why should there be a tax break, and why should people who can afford such things be treated special?

Solar penalty fee pays for revenue loss from solar customers, and for lenghtening the ROI on solar.

"Oil and gas companies receive a number of permanent tax incentives (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/oil-exploration-tax-deduction-57139.html), totaling $18.5 billion in 2013"

[Wild Cobra]

Solar penalty fee pays for revenue loss from solar customers, and for lenghtening the ROI on solar.

"Oil and gas companies receive a number of permanent tax incentives (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/oil-exploration-tax-deduction-57139.html), totaling $18.5 billion in 2013"



I say, like normal, you are full of bullshit.

You offered no proof that solar customers pay an extra fee, and linked legitimate tax deductions.

[boutons_deux]

I say, like normal, you are full of bullshit.

You offered no proof that solar customers pay an extra fee, and linked legitimate tax deductions.

you FULL OF SHIT and IDEOLOGICALLY STUPID

Arizona’s New Solar Charge Is ‘Unsupportable By Any Economic Analysis’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/27/3627891/arizona-utility-adds-50-dollar-rooftop-solar-fee/)

Starting in April, solar users across Arizona will be subject to an additional rate charge of about $50 per month. This new “demand charge” will be based on a solar users’ peak power demand during the month and will be levied regardless of how much electricity is offset by their residential solar units.

The Salt River Project (SRP), one of the nation’s largest public power utilities, has been fighting for this and other renewable energy fees because of what the company argues is needed to Starting in April, solar users across Arizona will be subject to an additional rate charge of about $50 per month. This new “demand charge” will be based on a solar users’ peak power demand during the month and will be levied regardless of how much electricity is offset by their residential solar units.

The Salt River Project (SRP), one of the nation’s largest public power utilities, has been fighting for this and other renewable energy fees because of what the company argues is needed to cover grid infrastructure and maintenance costs. This final approval of the plan by the elected board, which also includes a 3.9 percent rate increase for all customers, actually dropped proposals to raise existing solar customers’ charges in ten years as well as a new charge on buyers of solar homes.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/27/3627891/arizona-utility-adds-50-dollar-rooftop-solar-fee/

Investors SOAKING the 99%, with the approval even encouragement of Repug govts.

Repugs also killing RETs, renewal energy targets, instead of increasing them.

[Wild Cobra]

you FULL OF SHIT and IDEOLOGICALLY STUPID

Arizona’s New Solar Charge Is ‘Unsupportable By Any Economic Analysis’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/27/3627891/arizona-utility-adds-50-dollar-rooftop-solar-fee/)

No, your Think progress, once again, is lying:


The utility wanted to charge customers between $50 and $100 per month to use solar, but the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to charge a far-reduced 70 cents per kilowatt, meaning homeowners will pay about $5 a month.

Now this is if they are going to generate their own power, and be connected to the grid.

How otherwise, is the connection to the grid to be maintained?

For free?

[boutons_deux]

red states, natch, esp sun-soaked, Repug-fucked TX, "not applicable" :lol

http://freeingthegrid.org/#state-grades/

[TDMVPDPOY]

nearly done with extention of 2bedrooms

looking at gettin a 4-5kw system with inverter +1 kw just incase future upgrade if not enough...how much should i be lookin at?

[Wild Cobra]

nearly done with extention of 2bedrooms

looking at gettin a 4-5kw system with inverter +1 kw just incase future upgrade if not enough...how much should i be lookin at?

I would suggest considering the total peak usage of your air conditioners, refrigerators, and other appliances you might be running at the same time, and add at least 10% for your inverter size. If you added enough solar capacity, you could add batteries and get off the grid completely. Buy an electric car and charge it with your excess.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, your Think progress, once again, is lying:



Now this is if they are going to generate their own power, and be connected to the grid.

How otherwise, is the connection to the grid to be maintained?

For free?

:lol thinkprogress.borg

[TDMVPDPOY]

I would suggest considering the total peak usage of your air conditioners, refrigerators, and other appliances you might be running at the same time, and add at least 10% for your inverter size. If you added enough solar capacity, you could add batteries and get off the grid completely. Buy an electric car and charge it with your excess.

use to own a prius...dont see any savings man
now im back to petrol, still cant get that 5.5l/100km bullshit, still driving at 7.7l/100km

[CosmicCowboy]

nearly done with extention of 2bedrooms

looking at gettin a 4-5kw system with inverter +1 kw just incase future upgrade if not enough...how much should i be lookin at?

Without utility rebates and tax credits it's still doesn't make economic sense. I was only out of pocket for about 1/3 the total cost on mine after the tax credits and my payback is 9 years.

[boutons_deux]

Without utility rebates and tax credits it's still doesn't make economic sense. I was only out of pocket for about 1/3 the total cost on mine after the tax credits and my payback is 9 years.

that could change dramatically if CPS switches to time-of-day metering, and starts buying our feed-in power at retail rate of $0.11 instead of the ridiculous $0.02 per KwH.

But of course, TX is retarded by Repugs who will almost certainly block, from state level, any such pro-environment policies by "socialistic" municipally owned SA's and Austin's power companies, just like TX Repugs block municipally owned Internet networks.

[CosmicCowboy]

that could change dramatically if CPS switches to time-of-day metering, and starts buying our feed-in power at retail rate of $0.11 instead of the ridiculous $0.02 per KwH.

But of course, TX is retarded by Repugs who will almost certainly block, from state level, any such pro-environment policies by "socialistic" municipally owned SA's and Austin's power companies, just like TX Repugs block municipally owned Internet networks.

They buy mine at same price as I pay.

Also, Boo, your stupidity is showing again. CPS is owned by the City of San Antonio which is controlled by Democrats.

[boutons_deux]

They buy mine at same price as I pay.

Also, Boo, your stupidity is showing again. CPS is owned by the City of San Antonio which is controlled by Democrats.

CC, your stupidity, ideological driven, is showing, as always.

Excess residential solar power to the grid is credited, not paid in cash (as in Blue CA), at $0.0165/KwH, as CPSEnegry told me minutes ago, NOT credited at the $0.11 residential retail rate. Clearly, CPSEnergy isn't serious about promoting distributed solar.

So if you happen to have (much) lower consumption for some months, your excess power to the grid for credit is almost worthless.

I guarantee you, if Repugs ran SA, they would try to privatize CPSEnergy to investors and the rates would be MUCH higher, and services and investment lower. And SA city treasury would lose its $300M/year from the CPSEnergy milk cow.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC, your stupidity, ideological driven, is showing, as always.

Excess residential solar power to the grid is credited, not paid in cash (as in Blue CA), at $0.0165/KwH, as CPSEnegry told me minutes ago, NOT credited at the $0.11 residential retail rate. Clearly, CPSEnergy isn't serious about promoting distributed solar.

So if you happen to have (much) lower consumption for some months, your excess power to the grid for credit is almost worthless.

I guarantee you, if Repugs ran SA, they would try to privatize CPSEnergy to investors and the rates would be MUCH higher, and services and investment lower. And SA city treasury would lose its $300M/year from the CPSEnergy milk cow.

Boo...As usual you are full of shit. it's my house, my solar system. I know exactly how CPS charges me. My bill shows X kwh hours used minus Y kwh generated = z kwh I pay the prevailing rate for.

[Wild Cobra]

CC, weren't you also grandfathered in, before they made changes?

[cantthinkofanything]

Boo...As usual you are full of shit. it's my house, my solar system. I know exactly how CPS charges me. My bill shows X kwh hours used minus Y kwh generated = z kwh I pay the prevailing rate for.

That's just what BigPharma / BigEnergy wants you to believe.

[boutons_deux]

Boo...As usual you are full of shit. it's my house, my solar system. I know exactly how CPS charges me. My bill shows X kwh hours used minus Y kwh generated = z kwh I pay the prevailing rate for.

is your X - Y every negative? it's negative number I'm talking about, credited a $0.0165/KwH

[CosmicCowboy]

is your X - Y every negative? it's negative number I'm talking about, credited a $0.0165/KwH

nope

That's called "sizing a system properly".

[Wild Cobra]

is your X - Y every negative? it's negative number I'm talking about, credited a $0.0165/KwH

So you mean when the home owner generates more energy in a billing cycle than he uses.

Of course, a person shouldn't get full price back, for a net sale to CPS. CPS buys electricity at likely less than 1/3rd of what they sell it for. My own electric bills have the selling price of electricity at about half of what I pay. The rest if taxes, fees, supporting the infrastructure, etc.

[boutons_deux]

CPS buys electricity at likely less than 1/3rd of what they sell it for.

I can't find it now, but I read where CPS buys centralized solar from OCI for $0.14/KwH. The certainly don't buy from OCI at $0.0165

[boutons_deux]

nope

That's called "sizing a system properly".

It's the electric utility blocking customers from investing in solar power, to preserve/protect the utility's dominant, often monopolistic position over its captive market.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's the electric utility blocking customers from investing in solar power, to preserve/protect the utility's dominant, often monopolistic position over its captive market.

dumbass

They do nothing to prevent you from going solar off the grid.

[boutons_deux]

dumbass

They do nothing to prevent you from going solar off the grid.

dumbass shitkicker, going off grid takes many $Ks in batteries

[CosmicCowboy]

dumbass shitkicker, going off grid takes many $Ks in batteries

So the fact that off grid solar isn't economically feasible isn't CPS's fault?

[Wild Cobra]

Crybaby boo just wants his whole life to be subsidized.

Interesting:

https://www.cpsenergy.com/content/dam/corporate/en/Documents/EnergyEfficiency/solar_billing_facts.pdf

Is that example right?

Do you guys still only pay $0.0668 per kWh plus adjustments? Your rates are less than mine, and I have hydro-power. Mine is $0.065 / kWh plus numerous added adjustments totaling $0.0372 /kWh, plus $10.00/mo instead of $8.50, and taxes also.

Anyway, as poo boo points out, the selling price back to CPS in the example is only $0.0165 / kWh once you have a net excess of power. Nothing new though since that is a 2012 example! Three years!

[boutons_deux]

red state vs blue state

Solar Jobs Rivalry – MD vs. VA


http://www.altenergymag.com/images/upload/images/smackdown(1).jpg

http://www.altenergymag.com/article/2015/04/solar-jobs-rivalry-%E2%80%93-md-vs-va/19736/?utm_source=BenchmarkEmail&utm_campaign=AltEnergymag_Newsletter___May_6th&utm_medium=email

Repug bubba red states just suck totally

[boutons_deux]

Local Governments Win Solar at 9 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour With Collaborative Procurement

"I cannot tell you how exciting it is to be at another landfill," said Administrator Gina McCarthy of the U.S. EPA (http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/administrator-gina-mccarthy) while at this week's announcement of the nation's largest "multi-agency collaborative procurement for solar power."

That procession of bureaucratic terms is actually a lot more exciting (and difficult to accomplish) than it sounds.

Although government agencies have collaborated on the procurement of goods to leverage economies of scale in the past, that type of purchase process has never been applied to energy services, said Caroline Judy, acting director of the Alameda County GSA (http://www.acgov.org/gsa/), the lead agency in R-REP (http://www.jointventure.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=646&Itemid=565) (Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project), a syndicate of governmental agencies across four counties and 19 agencies in the East Bay and Silicon Valley regions of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Led by Alameda County, with help from Joint Venture Silicon Valley (http://www.jointventure.org/) and Optony, a solar consultancy, R-REP put together a bid package for renewable power that provides lower prices than the individual parties could have obtained.

Judy said, "We have pricing at utility scale," claiming PPA prices of 8 cents to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour on the aggregate projects, which is "15 percent to 47 percent below equivalent prior procurements."

There are 186 regional government facilities getting distributed PV installed on the ground, rooftops, and on parking structures for a total of 31 megawatts of solar power. The projects range from 15-kilowatt fire station rooftops, to 230-kilowatt carport installations at libraries and police stations, to a 6.6-megawatt project on the West Winton Landfill in Hayward, the largest project in the R-REP portfolio.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Local-Governments-Win-9-Cent-per-Kilowatt-Hour-Solar-With-Collaborative-Pro?utm_source=Solar&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[boutons_deux]

I can't find it now, but I read where CPS buys centralized solar from OCI for $0.14/KwH. CPS certainly doesn't buy from OCI at $0.0165

still can't find it.

[boutons_deux]

CPS Energy's high cost of secrecy

Whatever the merits of CPS Energy's deal with OCI Solar Power (http://www.mysanantonio.com/search/?action=search&channel=opinion%2Feditorials&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22OCI+Solar+Power%22), and we believe there are many, the public is paying a premium in secrecy.

We were reminded of this in a recent story by the San Antonio Express-News' Nolan Hicks (http://www.mysanantonio.com/search/?action=search&channel=opinion%2Feditorials&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Nolan+Hicks%22), who reported CPS Energy is paying about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power.

But CPS Energy will not confirm that figure. While owned by the city, it views itself as a separate entity.

In July 2012, CPS Energy inked a 25-year contract with OCI Solar Power for five plants that will produce a total of 400 megawatts of solar energy. OCI Solar requested a non-disclosure agreement to protect its negotiating position for future projects. Citing that agreement, CPS Energy has refused to provide any insight into how that price was set, or how the contract was structured.

The utility's president and chief executive, Doyle Beneby, has declined interview requests. On costs, CPS Energy officials have cited the amount and intensity of sunshine in the region, and costs associated with land and technology.

We have supported the OCI Solar deal in the past and continue to because it promises cleaner energy, diversity in electricity sources and economic development. The project comes with 800 jobs to the utility's service area.

But that doesn't justify cutting out the public for such a significant deal. CPS Energy is beholden to the public, not OCI Solar.

Such secrecy around the utility's dealings, and resistance to questions, creates the opposite impression.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/CPS-Energy-s-high-cost-of-secrecy-4673087.php

[boutons_deux]

Although SA and Austin electric utilities are municipally owned, they aren't in any way pro-citizen progressive for rooftop solar
Solar Parity Coming Faster Than Expectedhttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/22/solar-parity-coming-faster-expected/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Wild Cobra]

Although SA and Austin electric utilities are municipally owned, they aren't in any way pro-citizen progressive for rooftop solar
Solar Parity Coming Faster Than Expectedhttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/22/solar-parity-coming-faster-expected/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

I don't know what to say about your cradle to grave entitlement/subsidy attitude.

[boutons_deux]

I don't know what to say about your cradle to grave entitlement/subsidy attitude.

you'll think of something completely irrelevant, exposing how fucking wrong you always are.

[boutons_deux]

Solar twice as expensive in US as in Germany


http://energytransition.de/files/2015/05/solar_prices_germany_usa.png


The reasons behind unnecessarily expensive PV in the US are interesting, and I (along with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-ppt.pdf)) have written (http://www.renewablesinternational.net/why-german-solar-costs-half-as-much-as-us-solar/150/510/56893/) about them before (http://www.renewablesinternational.net/rfps-make-renewables-artificially-expensive/150/510/57958/). In a nutshell, the installation process in the US is laden with red tape (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514006855), making a residential PV array as complicated as an infrastructure project – whereas solar rooftops in Germany are as uncomplicated for homeowners as any other roof work on your own home.

http://energytransition.de/2015/05/solar-twice-as-expensive-in-us-as-in-germany/

Germany is HIGH-COST, HEAVILY REGULATED, TOP EXPORTING SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Your chart is fucked, Germany killed the solar subsidies.:lmao

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidi es_.html

[boutons_deux]

Your chart is fucked, Germany killed the solar subsidies.:lmao

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidi es_.html


:lol for the chart to be fucked it would have to extend through end of 2014, so prove from the end of 2013 that solar price in Germany has jumped up, to or above USA price

Here's a more up to date report, and Germany's solar is still a lot cheaper than USA's.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-energy-support-germany-closer-look

[boutons_deux]

Your chart is fucked, Germany killed the solar subsidies.:lmao

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidi es_.html

Bjørn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of

The Skeptical Environmentalist (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521010683/?tag=slatmaga-20),

Cool It (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307741109/?tag=slatmaga-20), and most recently

How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1107679338/?tag=slatmaga-20)

http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol for the chart to be fucked it would have to extend through end of 2014, so prove from the end of 2013 that solar price in Germany has jumped up, to or above USA price

Here's a more up to date report, and Germany's solar is still a lot cheaper than USA's.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-energy-support-germany-closer-look

Germans pay 3X what the US pays per KWH.

[boutons_deux]

Germans pay 3X what the US pays per KWH.

coal/utility power is about $0.30/KwH, which provides the HUGE incentive to install solar, AND get a rapid payback.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Boo...whats your excuse...why haven't you installed solar? Waiting till you can charge it with your Lone Star Card?

[boutons_deux]

So Boo...whats your excuse...why haven't you installed solar? Waiting till you can charge it with your Lone Star Card?

I'm putting up 12 x 320 watt SolarWorld panels + SolarEdge inverter now, CPS approval done, working on COSA permit.

3 x 2-axis trackers with 4 panels per tracker.

[CosmicCowboy]

pics or it didn't happen. Why are YOU getting the COSA permit?

[boutons_deux]

pics or it didn't happen. Why are YOU getting the COSA permit?

I'm not getting the permit. My solar installer is. I don't think anybody but authorized solar installer can obtain CPS/COSA permits.

[CosmicCowboy]

that is true

[boutons_deux]

World’s Cheapest Solar Power Lands In Austin, Texas — Under 4¢/kWh! (Sort Of)

Austin Energy, the city of Austin’s utility, recently put out data (http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/06/solar-prices-keep-dropping-says-austin-energy/) on solar project bids for the utility’s 600 MW procurement plan. To show how competitive this landscape is, Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy’s vice president of resource planning, noted that 7,976 MW worth of solar projects were bid in April in competition for this 600 MW.

But that only partly shows how competitive things have gotten. 1,295 MW of those solar project bids came in below 4¢/kWh! (Talk about shattering records.)

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/worlds-cheapest-solar-power-lands-in-austin-texas-under-4%C2%A2kwh-sort-of/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

I saw where CPS Energy is paying $0.14/KwH to OCI (3x more than Austin Energy's bids), but can't find it.

[Wild Cobra]

World’s Cheapest Solar Power Lands In Austin, Texas — Under 4¢/kWh! (Sort Of)

Austin Energy, the city of Austin’s utility, recently put out data (http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/06/solar-prices-keep-dropping-says-austin-energy/) on solar project bids for the utility’s 600 MW procurement plan. To show how competitive this landscape is, Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy’s vice president of resource planning, noted that 7,976 MW worth of solar projects were bid in April in competition for this 600 MW.

But that only partly shows how competitive things have gotten. 1,295 MW of those solar project bids came in below 4¢/kWh! (Talk about shattering records.)

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/worlds-cheapest-solar-power-lands-in-austin-texas-under-4%C2%A2kwh-sort-of/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

I saw where CPS Energy is paying $0.14/KwH to OCI (3x more than Austin Energy's bids), but can't find it.




I doubt the $0.0584 per kWh is accurate. I hope to be shown wrong, but I don't see that as a realistic selling price to also cover construction, maintenance, etc.

[boutons_deux]

I doubt the $0.0584 per kWh is accurate. I hope to be shown wrong, but I don't see that as a realistic selling price to also cover construction, maintenance, etc.

your blind ideology has a tough time facing hard reality

[Wild Cobra]

I doubt the $0.0584 per kWh is accurate. I hope to be shown wrong, but I don't see that as a realistic selling price to also cover construction, maintenance, etc.


your blind ideology has a tough time facing hard reality


I doubt the $0.0584 per kWh is accurate. I hope to be shown wrong, but I don't see that as a realistic selling price to also cover construction, maintenance, etc.

My God, you are a first class idiot.

[TDMVPDPOY]

man i was going to get a system then the oxymoron leader down here pulls out all money into solar to protect stake holders in the energy sector that has a vested interested in energy stocks and coal, in other words dont fix shit which isnt broken

anyway the pos leader is proposing a deal with energy suppliers, where the consumer pays for panel product and installation, gets a cheap rate for energy supplied in return...but the panels dont belong to the consumer but the energy supplier...ROFLMAO monkeys

[boutons_deux]

man i was going to get a system then the oxymoron leader down here pulls out all money into solar to protect stake holders in the energy sector

yeah, Abbott is conservative, and conservatives EVERYWHERE fuck stuff up, which is the definition of conservatism.

[CosmicCowboy]

CPS is killing all their subsidies at the end of this year and the Federal tax credits expire too. Looks like residential solar is pretty well dead in San Antonio.

[TDMVPDPOY]

CPS is killing all their subsidies at the end of this year and the Federal tax credits expire too. Looks like residential solar is pretty well dead in San Antonio.

i thought that only applies to new clients who got in late, those on grand plans still get to keep those credit plans?

[CosmicCowboy]

i thought that only applies to new clients who got in late, those on grand plans still get to keep those credit plans?

Yes.

Talking about subsidized installation.

[boutons_deux]

CPS pays $1.60 per watt of solar panel, very attractive installation subsidy, but it would be much better long run if CPS (also) had an equally aggressive feed-in tariff.

[Wild Cobra]

CPS pays $1.60 per watt of solar panel, very attractive installation subsidy, but it would be much better long run if CPS (also) had an equally aggressive feed-in tariff.

At what rate would you have this at?

[boutons_deux]

At what rate would you have this at?

The same rate CPS buys from OCI, which IIRC is $0.14/KwH.

At very least what CPS bills residential customers, $0.11/KwH

[Wild Cobra]

The same rate CPS buys from OCI, which IIRC is $0.14/KwH.

At very least what CPS bills residential customers, $0.11/KwH

LOL...

If CPS is already losing money, why should they lose more?

Maybe the customers should be charged that $0.14 plus distribution, transmission, maintenance, salaries, etc.

You know...

If you raise electricity to the true cost, then that would be incentive enough for people to install solar.

You live your subsidies, don't you?

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you get your rates?


MONTHLY BILL
Rate
$ 8.75 Service Availability Charge

Energy Charge
$ 0.0691 Per KWH for all KWH

Peak Capacity Charge*
$ 0.0198 Per KWH for all KWH in excess of 600 KWH

For customers to pay $0.0691/kWh means selling back should be under $0.05.

https://www.cpsenergy.com/content/dam/corporate/en/Documents/Rate_ResidentialElectric.pdf

[boutons_deux]

CPS is announcing two huge solar initiatives

1. community solar, you buy panels, about $300 each, in a "community" solar farm (you won't or can't put solar on your roof)

2. CPS leasing your rooftop to put their panels. (same deal as Elon Musk's SolarCity, etc)

but they are absolutely refusing to pay for excess solar power from distributed business/residential solar.

[boutons_deux]

State of Texas: The Future’s So Bright You Gotta Wear Shades


http://www.texasobserver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/201508-state-of-texas-future-so-bright-joanna-wojtkwiak_cropped.jpg

http://www.texasobserver.org/solar-renewable-energy-competitive-fossil-fuels/

[boutons_deux]

Obama Just Picked The Customer’s Side Against The Nevada Utility That’s Trying To Kill Rooftop Solar

On Wednesday, Nevada’s public utility commission (PUC) will decide whether to agree with a proposal by the local utility and implement huge rate increases in solar customers that industry insiders say will completely devastate the residential market in the state.

“We see the trend lines. We see where technology is taking us. We see where consumers want to go,” Obama said Monday. “That, let’s be honest, has some fossil fuel interests pretty nervous, to the point where they are trying to fight renewable energy.”

Nevada is — so far — a solar success story.

The state is in first place (http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/press-release-state-map-2014/) in per capita solar jobs.

Investment in solar quadrupled last year (http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/nevada) to more than half a billion dollars.

There are more than 100 solar companies in Nevada, including six manufacturers.

And the only reason solar customers’ electricity rates are even up for debate is that the installation cap under the old rate was hit last week, six months earlier than the utility estimated.

We see the trend lines. We see where technology is taking us. We see where consumers want to go.Under an agreement hammered out earlier this year (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/18/3659950/nevada-senate-points-toward-solar-fee/), public utility NV Energy’s net metering program — under which solar customers are paid market rate for the electricity they put back onto the grid — would be reconsidered by the end of the year, sometime before the 235-megawatt (MW) cap was hit. Now, solar installers are in limbo. The PUC could accept NV Energy’s proposal (https://nvenergy.com/renewablesenvironment/solar/netmetering-filing.cfm?utm_source=pressrelease&utm_medium=media&utm_content=SB374&utm_campaign=sb374%20press-release) that would add fees and charges to solar customers’ bills.

“This proposal is a thousand pages. It’s incredibly complicated,” Chandler Sherman, a spokesperson for SolarCity, told Think Progress.

Sherman said the proposal includes nine new fees, taxes, and charges, which are often difficult for residential customers to understand. “They are really just designed to make it harder for people to go solar,” she said.

Among the additions is a nearly $14 per kilowatt hour (kWh) demand charge. That means that a customer’s peak demand during the month would be multiplied by $14 and added to the electricity bill, which currently just calculates a customer’s usage. The surcharge would only apply to solar customers. These types of charges are difficult to estimate and are incredibly rare for residential customers in the United States.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/25/3694832/nv-energy-vs-rooftop-solar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

This is how a Repug red state promote Rugged Individualism and The Free Market, but really viciously protecting BigUtility!

btw, red neck Nevadans: Hoover Dam! "You Didn't Build That"

[boutons_deux]

Next Texas Energy Boom: Solar

FORT STOCKTON, Texas—A new energy boom is taking shape in the oil fields of west Texas, but it’s not what you think. It’s solar.

Solar power has gotten so cheap to produce—and so competitively priced in the electricity market—that it is taking hold even in a state that, unlike California, doesn’t offer incentives to utilities to buy or build sun-powered generation.

Pecos County, about halfway between San Antonio and El Paso and on the southern edge of the prolific Permian Basin oil field, could soon play host to several large solar-energy farms responsible for about $1 billion in investments, according to state tax records.

On a recent day, contractors for OCI Solar Power LLC erected posts for a solar farm that will be the size of more than 900 football fields.First Solar (http://quotes.wsj.com/FSLR) Inc. was negotiating to lease an adjacent property, its second project in the county. Last year, the Arizona company began capturing sunlight on 400,000 black solar panels in a separate project, converting the abundant sunlight into about 30 megawatts of power.

SunEdison (http://quotes.wsj.com/SUNE) Inc. has presented plans for its own utility-scale solar farm to county commissioners, and Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Canadian Solar (http://quotes.wsj.com/CSIQ) Inc., is readying another site nearby for construction.

State incentives in California, Nevada and North Carolina helped fund the construction of many large-scale solar farms designed to sell electricity into those local power grids.

But in Texas, while there is federal financial support for such projects, there are no state subsidies or mandates that encourage solar power.



Texas currently has only 193 megawatts of large-scale solar arrays, enough to power about 40,000 Texas homes on a summer afternoon. But the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the operator of the power grid that covers most of the state, expects between 10,000 megawatts and 12,500 megawatts of solar-generating capacity to be installed by 2029. That is roughly equal to the size of all solar farms currently operating in the U.S.

Texas’ growth will be driven by falling prices, said Warren Lasher,ERCOT’s director of system planning. By the end of the decade, he said, “Solar is going to become one of the most cost-effective sources of electricity on the grid.”

In 15 years, ERCOT predicts between 3% and 9% of its electricity generation will come from the sun, though that could be slowed by low natural gas prices, according to the grid operator and energy company officials.

West Texas “is flat, the land is open, available and cheap and there is a lot of sun” said Raiford Smith, vice president of corporate planning for CPS Energy, a city-owned utility in San Antonio. “It is an ideal place for putting solar.”
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BT-AD800_TEXSOL_16U_20150820165105.jpg



Another reason for the boom: Texas recently wrapped up construction of $6.9 billion worth of new transmission lines, many connecting West Texas to the state’s large cities. These massive power lines enabled Texas to become, by far, the largest U.S. wind producer.

Solar developers plan to move electricity on the same lines, taking advantage of a lull in wind generation during the heat of the day when solar output is at its highest.

The cost of big-scale solar projects is also plummeting, making them competitive in the state’s low-price power market. Last year, municipal utility Austin Energy signed a contract with Recurrent Energy to build a 150-megawatt solar facility in Pecos County, making it one of the largest solar farms in the country. On a sunny summer afternoon, the facility could provide more than 5% of the city’s power needs at a price—$50 per megawatt hour—considerably below other solar projects.

In July, Austin Energy announced bids for a new round of solar construction that were below $40 a megawatt hour. “We had a feeling the bids would be a little lower, but we were surprised,” saidKhalil Shalabi, vice president of energy markets operations and resource planning at the utility.

In the afternoon, the average wholesale power price in the Texas electric grid’s western zone for the past year has been $35.43 a megawatt hour, according to data from the grid operator. Over the coming years, these wholesale prices are expected to rise, creating more opportunity for solar farms to be profitable.

And in a heat wave, ERCOT rules allow wholesale prices to spike up to $9,000 a megawatt hour, creating the potential for large windfalls for solar farms and other power generators.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BF-AK298_TEXSOL_P_20150821192252.jpg

Local officials have welcomed solar developers, offering 10-year tax abatements.

“It is good for the county because we get a decent addition to our tax base,” said Joe Shuster, Pecos County’s chief executive.

Construction is moving quickly at the OCI Solar facility that sits in a wide valley surrounded by mesas topped with hundreds of wind turbines. A hundred workers were hard at work drilling holes and anchoring posts in the dry ground that will support individual solar arrays on a recent visit.

“This is like a giant assembly line,” says Billy Chapman, the construction manager for OCI Solar, a subsidiary of Seoul, South Korea-based OCI Company Ltd.

‘It is an ideal place for putting solar. ’
—Raiford Smith, utility-company executive

A veteran of the U.S. Navy and construction giant Bechtel Corp., Mr. Chapman built natural-gas fired power plants around the world before taking a job constructing arrays of solar panels.

“I’m not one of those big tree-hugging people,” he said, guiding a pickup around the OCI Solar site. “In places like this where there is nothing going on, where there is lots of land, solar makes sense.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/next-texas-energy-boom-solar-1440149400

[boutons_deux]

Investment Bankers Think Solar and Wind Will Grow Way Faster Than the IEA Forecast


Citibank’s projections show these deployments will save $1.8 trillion by 2040.

Under an “Inaction” scenario, Citi analysts assumed that in 2040 the electricity sector would remain weighted toward fossil fuels -- roughly 40 percent coal, 22 percent natural gas and 6 percent renewables.

Under an “Action” scenario, the share of fossil fuels would decline from today’s 64 percent to 28 percent. At the same time, power consumption would grow at a slower rate thanks to efficiency measures, while solar and onshore wind grow to 22 percent of the electricity mix.

Renewables play a notably larger role in Citi’s view of a lower carbon future than in the International Energy Agency’s 450 Scenario (http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/), which sets out an energy pathway consistent with limiting the global increase in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius.

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Citi_report_chart_1.png
Analysts at Citibank predict global growth in solar could be at least 65 percent higher on average than what the International Energy Agency predicts through 2020. Citi's solar PV forecast shows an average global installation rate of 53 gigawatts per year between 2013 and 2020. The IEA, by comparison, forecasts an average global installation rate of 33 gigawatts to 34 gigawatts per year over the same period.

GTM Research's global PV forecast (http://www.greentechmedia.com/research/report/global-pv-demand-outlook-2015-2020) is significantly higher than both Citi's and the IEA’s, coming in at an average of 75.5 gigawatts per year between 2013 and 2020.

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Citi_solar_installations.png

Citi and the IEA also differ in their wind installation projections. Citi estimates that installations between 2013 and 2020 will average roughly 54 gigawatts per year, versus the IEA’s annual average of 38 gigawatts to 42 gigawatts.

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Citi_wind_installations.png

The IEA and the United States’ Energy Information Administration are notorious for low-balling renewable energy deployment figures. A recent EIA report (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-the-eias-energy-outlook-misses-the-real-value-of-green-energy) projected that all non-hydro renewables will account for only 18 percent of the country’s electricity generation supply by 2040, up from 13 percent in 2013.

Experts at these organizations have been accused of relying upon ill-considered assumptions (http://grist.org/renewable-energy/experts-in-2000-lowballed-the-crap-out-of-renewable-energy-growth/), and even of being biased toward fossil-fuel interests (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/vsps-of-energy/?_r=0). This has troubling implications (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-policymakers-driving-blind-with-yesterdays-electricity-cost-numbers) for policymaking, argue Eric Gimon and Sonia Aggarwal of America’s Power Plan. When deployment and cost assumptions are systematically underestimated, it undermines the ability to create smart laws and regulations for the future.

According to Citigroup, decarbonizing the world’s energy mix will involve not only creating new policies, but also innovation in financial markets. That includes new vehicles such as securitized energy-efficiency fixed interest instruments, as well as YieldCos and green bonds.

These innovations will help drive down the cost of capital for renewables, making them more competitive. By Citi’s calculations, wind is expected to be fully competitive with conventional fuels by 2020. Better financing conditions are expected to make the cost of solar electricity generation more competitive by 2020; however, global solar prices are still expected to be above $80 per megawatt-hour, according to the report.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/investment-bankers-think-solar-and-wind-are-going-to-grow-faster-than-IEA?utm_source=Solar&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[boutons_deux]

Texas Mulls the Market Power of Distributed Energy Resources

This summer, Texas grid operator ERCOT started working on ideas (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/texas-looks-to-distributed-energy-resources-as-market-players) for opening the state’s energy markets to distributed energy resources, by allowing the grid-scale aggregation of rooftop customer-sited generators. It’s a move similar to those being taken in solar-rich states like California (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/independents-to-calif-utilities-more-grid-edge-data-please) andHawaii (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/featured/The-Land-of-Surf-Sun-and-Startups-5-Promising-Energy-Companies-Working-in), only with Texas’ unique deregulated market flavor.

One interesting question is how to build distributed energy resource (DER) portfolios with enough flexibility to optimize their value to the grid and their owners, but not so much flexibility that companies can game the system. It's a concern in the state that spawned Enron, and it’s part of the discussion around ERCOT’s new concept paper, released last week, that lays out a first official outline of what the state’s DER future might look like.

The white paper is for ERCOT’s Distributed Resource Energy & Ancillaries Market (DREAM) Task Force, or DREAMTF for acronym fans. The document largely hews to the three key classifications ERCOT is considering -- DER Minimal, DER Light, and DER Heavy -- and a description of just what will need to happen, and what future questions need to be answered, to make each version into a real-world grid product.

Roughly speaking, DER Minimal would set compensation like demand response today, at the regional market clearing price of one of Texas' four grid zones. DER Light and Heavy, by contrast, would allow payment at prices set at the more than 11,000 nodes across the state, where prices can shift and spike more quickly to reflect local conditions, and are usually reserved to big generators. DER Heavy adds another layer: real-time dispatchability to meet fast-responding ancillary services markets.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/texas-mulls-boundaries-of-distributed-energys-market-power?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+M edia%29

DER talk by ERCOT is probably just a smoke screen. ERCOT will do everything it can to retard DER to protect electric utilities.

[boutons_deux]

The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down

Wind power was so plentiful in Texas that producers sold it at a negative price. What?

In the wee hours of the morning on Sunday, the mighty state of Texas was asleep. The honky-tonks in Austin were shuttered, the air-conditioned office towers of Houston were powered down, and the wind whistled through the dogwood trees and live oaks on the gracious lawns of Preston Hollow. Out in the desolate flats of West Texas, the same wind was turning hundreds of wind turbines, producing tons of electricity at a time when comparatively little supply was needed.

And then a very strange thing happened:

The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/record-wind-generation-pushes-ercot-prices-into-negative-territory/405606/).

As the Lone Star State slumbered, power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_ plentiful_one_night_that.html

[Wild Cobra]

The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down

Wind power was so plentiful in Texas that producers sold it at a negative price. What?

In the wee hours of the morning on Sunday, the mighty state of Texas was asleep. The honky-tonks in Austin were shuttered, the air-conditioned office towers of Houston were powered down, and the wind whistled through the dogwood trees and live oaks on the gracious lawns of Preston Hollow. Out in the desolate flats of West Texas, the same wind was turning hundreds of wind turbines, producing tons of electricity at a time when comparatively little supply was needed.

And then a very strange thing happened:

The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/record-wind-generation-pushes-ercot-prices-into-negative-territory/405606/).

As the Lone Star State slumbered, power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_ plentiful_one_night_that.html




And they are suppose to be profitable... how???

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a possible solution to excessive wind and solar power. Fuel cells can be storage solutions. All we need to do is on site reduction of water for excess power, and use fuel cells when needed.

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-reimagine-fuel-cells-1.18392

[boutons_deux]

Here is a possible solution to excessive wind and solar power. Fuel cells can be storage solutions. All we need to do is on site reduction of water for excess power, and use fuel cells when needed.

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-reimagine-fuel-cells-1.18392

complementing distributed energy generation, distributed energy storage will destroy centralized energy suppliers, is why they are paying $100Ms to Repugs to block, slow, kill distributed energy.

there is so much (promising) battery, fuel cell, energy storage research world-wide that one or more breakthroughs will shake the entire energy markets

[boutons_deux]

Arizona Public Service has offered to withdraw its request to increase the grid access charge for residential solar customers, claiming that opponents have turned the issue into “political theater.”

In a filing (https://www.azenergyfuture.com/getmedia/49cbe3e0-7055-4b10-81aa-bcc5a557e752/APSProposal_092515.pdf/?ext=.pdf) submitted on Friday, APS said it would drop its proposed fee increase if regulators move forward instead with hearings on the cost of providing electricity service, in order to determine future rates that are fair to all customers.

If the Arizona Corporation Commission accepts the APS recommendation, regulators would launch an investigation into the value-of-solar that would establish

1.) the actual costs for APS to serve rooftop solar customers and

2.) the amount those customers pay for continued reliance on the grid.

The utility asked for the ACC to reach a decision by March 2016 so the results could be incorporated in the next APS rate case.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/aps-proposes-to-withdraw-fee-increase-for-solar-customers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+M edia%29

energy storage breakthroughs will allow people to stop relying on the grid completely.

[boutons_deux]

Utilities seek to charge solar system owners more for connection to grid

The Inglewood resident signed in March with solar leasing giant SolarCity to fix his electric bills at $130 a month — down from the $250 to $300 he had been paying.

Those savings, however, would eventually evaporate if state regulators approve proposals from California utilities to charge solar users more for their connection to the grid.
"This thing would be worthless to me," Espinoza said.

Existing rooftop solar customers would receive some exemptions from the net-metering changes for 20 years after they installed their systems.

But their costs still could rise because of separate regulatory changes, already enacted, that allow higher rates for users who buy small amounts of electricity from the grid.

For new purchases of rooftop solar, the utility proposals could wipe out the potential savings on power — the main incentive for buying the systems.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-net-metering-20150927-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Solar Customers Launch a Class Action Lawsuit Against NV Energy

Plaintiffs say the utility “conspired to unlawfully reduce incentives” in order to protect their monopoly.

Solar customers in Nevada are taking legal action against NV Energy in response to controversial changes to the state's net metering program.

Plaintiffs John Bamforth and Stanley Schone filed a class action lawsuit (http://mediaassets.ktnv.com/document/2016/01/15/nv_energy_lawsuit_30012233_ver1.0.pdf?_ga=1.110788 294.2135782561.1452877269) on January 12 seeking recompense for being mislead into purchasing solar systems “that do not provide the promised rebates, discounts and rates.”

The case stems from the Nevada Public Utility Commission’s recent decision (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Nevada-Regulators-Eliminate-Retail-Rate-Net-Metering-for-New-and-Existing-S) to lower the net metering credit for rooftop solar customers from the retail rate to the wholesale rate over the next four years.

The decision also lowers solar customers’ monthly volumetric charge by about one cent over the same period, while

increasing the monthly fixed charge for the bulk of Nevada customers from $12.75 to $38.51 (https://www.nvenergy.com/renewablesenvironment/renewablegenerations/NetMetering.cfm?utm_source=nve_frontpage&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=net-meter-rates&utm_campaign=net-meter-ratesFP).

The changes came into effect on January 1 and apply to all future rooftop solar customers in Nevada, as well as the 17,000 existing solar customers in the state.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-customers-launch-a-class-action-suit-against-nv-energy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GTM_Solar+%28GTM+Solar%29

We The People fighting back against Them The Fucking Repugs

Other red and slave Repug states probably planning to screw, or have screwed, their distributed solar customers like NV is doing, so winning this suit is fundamental to screwing electric monopolies and their screw-the-99% Repug enablers/protectors.

[Wild Cobra]

Conspired.

LOL...

If they use that argument, they will lose. Looks good in the headlines for shit eaters and regurgitaters like you though.

[Wild Cobra]

The only thing I don't understand in the lawsuit is the credits allegedly not being honored. The claim of the 20 credits = $1.00.

I see the lawsuit as a joke. They are alleging "beliefs." This looks like a phishing expedition, not a valid complaint.

Shazbot...

Can you show us where any of these allegations are true? the rate increase is to net metered customers. Went from $12.75/month to 17.90 at the beginning of this year and the full $38.51 gradually comes in at 2020. The 2016 net metering rate changed from $0.11 to 0.09 at the start of this year and is scheduled to go to $0.026 in 2020. I don't see a problem with this. The incentives to change to green energy cannot last forever. The subsidies need a scheduled termination phase out, and they chose 2020.

Again, the only think I don't understand is the 20 credits = $1.00 in the suit. can you explain that please? I assume they are speaking of federal rebates the customers need to seek on their own, or that the installers received for a reduced installation cost.

[boutons_deux]

Nothing "belief" about penalizing solar customers to keep investor-owned-for-profit NV Energy's cash flow pouring in.

100s, if not 1000s, of solar jobs lost or will be lost as NV Energy effectively kills solar in sunny NV.

Net metering dropping from $0.11 to $0.026 isn't an incentive. It's simply NV Energy buying power from distributed solar customers.

NV Energy SELLS a KwH for $0.13 to residential customers. Buy a KwH for 2.6 and sell for 13? nice markup to screw their customers.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing "belief" about penalizing solar customers to keep investor-owned-for-profit NV Energy's cash flow pouring in.

I see you didn't read the lawsuit.

The word "belief" is in almost every claim. It would surprise me if it's thrown out for that reason.



100s, if not 1000s, of solar jobs lost or will be lost as NV Energy effectively kills solar in sunny NV.

When does your desire for subsidizing things end? We need to end all subsidies!



Net metering dropping from $0.11 to $0.026 isn't an incentive. It's price paid for NV Energy buying power from distributed solar customers.

I don't see a problem with it. That the approximate wholesale rate. Why should any power producer get more than the wholesale rate? Do you think the money to pay wages and line maintenance comes out of thin air?

I noticed you didn't answer my question about credits.

[boutons_deux]

Warren Buffett controls Nevada’s legacy utility. Elon Musk is behind the solar company that’s upending the market. Let the fun begin.

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-solar-power-buffett-vs-musk/

Buffet is as ruthless, greedy as any capitalist.

Besides screwing up the Nevada solar market to NV utilities monopoly cash flow, and retroactively, he also controls the biggest mobile home mfr which finances at sub-prime rates.

[boutons_deux]

Warren Buffett controls Nevada’s legacy utility. Elon Musk is behind the solar company that’s upending the market. Let the fun begin.

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-solar-power-buffett-vs-musk/

Buffet is as ruthless, greedy as any capitalist.

Besides screwing up the Nevada solar market to NV utilities monopoly cash flow, and retroactively, he also controls the biggest mobile home mfr which finances at sub-prime rates.

[boutons_deux]

The Koch Brothers' Dirty War on Solar Power

All over the country, the Kochs and utilities have been blocking solar initiatives — but nowhere more so than in REPUG Florida

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/kochs_hate_sun.jpg?itok=jPqMJUqo


investor-owned utilities, together with Koch-brothers-funded front groups like American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are mounting a fierce, rear-guard resistance at the state level – pushing rate hikes and punishing fees for homeowners who turn to solar power. Their efforts have darkened green-energy prospects in could-be solar superpowers like Arizona and Nevada. But nowhere has the solar industry been more eclipsed than in Florida, where the utilities' powers of obstruction are unrivaled.

The Sunshine State has the best solarity east of the Mississippi, and the third-best rooftop solar potential in America. Yet measured by solar production, it ranks just 16th in the nation. It's dwarfed by solar giants like California. Florida even lags behind Northern states like New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York. "It defies logic," says former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. "It's absolutely absurd."

The solar industry in Florida has been boxed out by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that reap massive profits from natural gas and coal. These IOUs wield outsize political power in the state capital of Tallahassee, and flex it to protect their absolute monopoly on electricity sales. "We live in the Stone Age in regard to renewable power," says state Rep. Dwight Dudley, the ranking Democrat on the energy subcommittee in the Florida House.

"The power companies hold sway here, and the consumers are at their mercy."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/12/koch-brothers-dirty-war-solar-power

Repugs just love, adore FREE markets as delivering optimum solutions (for investors' enrichment)

[boutons_deux]

Nevada REPUG Regulators Approve New Rate Hike Timeline For Rooftop Solar Customers

The Public Utility Commission of Nevada voted unanimously on Friday to transition rooftop solar customers onto contentious new rates over 12 years, rejecting requests from NV Energy and solar advocates to approve a more generous 20-year transition period.
The change applies to both existing and new solar customers, building on a draft rule (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/regulators-proposal-would-not-grandfather-existing-rooftop-solar-customers)issued this week, thanks to a last-minute proposal put forward by Chairman Paul Thomsen.

NV Energy did not immediately respond to request for comment, but recently lobbied to keep Nevada’s 17,000 existing solar customers on the old rates for up to 20 years (http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/feb/05/nv-energy-let-existing-solar-customers-keep-old-ra/).

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-regulators-approve-grandfathering-for-rooftop-solar-customers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GTM_Solar+%28GTM+Solar%29

NV Energy is controlled by "friendly, avuncular, harmless" Warren Buffet.

Contracts for citizens are routinely raped by BigCorp.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad you don't know the truth B-Shit. You just repeat what some activist says that appeals to your confirmation bias.

[boutons_deux]

Too bad you don't know the truth B-Shit. You just repeat what some activist says that appeals to your confirmation bias.

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC.

[Winehole23]

residential solar storage:


Sunnova Energy Corporation, a Houston-based solar energy company, said Thursday that it is bringing a solar-plus-storage system that will allow homeowners to store solar energy in batteries for later use to Texas.


Solar energy production ebbs and flows with the sun, which is why many solar panels are connected to the grid — homeowners contribute power to the grid whenever the sun is shining in exchange for credit they can use for power later. What are known as solar-plus-storage systems allows homes with solar panels to store energy during the day and dispense it when needed, reducing dependence on the grid. Sunnova’s residential solar-plus-storage system, SunSafe, debuted in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria caused the longest blackout in U.S. history. The service provides a 25-year performance guarantee.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Sunnova-brings-solar-power-storage-system-to-Texas-13355007.php