Reply With Quote
What are your aims?
CPS Energy is unique in that it is the largest municipally owned energy company in USA, but it's still banally structured as a centralized energy supplier.
That needs to change, especially in the year-round, sun-drenched CPS Energy coverage area.
There's abundant experience in rooftop solar, rates, equipment, incentives, etc in California, other US states, Germany, etc which would guide CPS in avoiding the mistakes of the pioneers.
Backgrounders on distributed vs centralized energy:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/roof..._campaign=feed
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sola...u-s-utilities/
http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-..._campaign=feed
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sola..._campaign=feed
There's an association of solar installers who I'm sure will support the campaign:
http://www.solarsanantonio.org/
I'm working with Michael Higgins of http://www.greenstarsolutions.net/index.php for my own rooftop or ground mount solar.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-18-2013 at 05:06 PM.
What are your aims?
duh
For CPS Energy to promote, aggressively, distributed solar.
Their generous rebate doesn't count?
Cant believe I'm with Boutons on this one. CPS is about to kill rooftop solar. The only thing that makes it feasible now(even with the rebates) is what they call "net metering". Meaning if I over produce X amount of KW (produced when they need it the most in the afternoon in the summertime) they give me X- KW for free back when the sun isn't shining.
They are about to kill this and are only grandfathering the early adopters in like me for 10 years. I am ing furious about this. Meanwhile, they are paying 11 cents a KWH to this "insider" solar farm contractor at the source.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 04-19-2013 at 06:56 AM.
they're decreasing it, rather than at least maintaining it, or better, increasing it.
and they need to pay more per Kwh feed in tariff, so payback period is shortened.
And if you provide the grid more Kwh/year than your consume from the grid, you must get credit or cash for it, and it must be rolled over (it expires now each year, you start over)
Beyond CPS, Bexar County Tax assessor must IGNORE any added resale value to a residence or commercial building derived from its solar installation.
OK, see that is better. I was asking for specific goals. Thank you.
The last one, I have to say that while it would be great, I don't see a real reason that the assessors office should ignore improvements to property.
with that said, I could get behind the other goals.
CPS is killing, at least not promoting distributed solar, but they were ready to spend $10Bs on nuclear and charge ratepayers for it.
How about spending those $10Bs promoting, safe, clean solar investment by ratepayers.
South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic
http://texasvox.org/2009/07/07/south...ate-low-balls/
I can't find a number, but surely CPS paid $10Ms for the quote, study, whatever of the cancelled nuke.
Much better to spend those wasted $10Ms on promoting distributed solar, which doesn't suffer from costly "refueling outages" like CPS has now with current nukes.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-18-2013 at 06:25 PM.
Utility Solar Business Model Flaws: CPS Energy's "SunCredit" Isn't the Answer
San Antonio, Texas -- As an owner of a small (16 kWp) PV plant, the local utility recently informed me that they would soon be discontinuing net metering in favor of a fixed payment per renewably produced kWh (cheerily termed a SunCredit), which is to be determined annually. Specifically, the retail value of a grid-delivered kWh is 9.9 cents while the value of a PV produced kWh is only 57% of that (5.6 cents). The remaining 4.3 cents per kWh is absorbed in the costs of transmission lines, transformers, administration, maintenance and the like.
The utilitys official rationale is that with more and more solar PV being installed, “…the costs of the utility infrastructure are borne by fewer customers—those who don’t have solar systems”. By the same logic, the utility will also need to develop a surcharge for those who reduce their energy consumption by installing energy saving measures.
There are a mul ude of facets to this policy that could be discussed including; the actual costs of infrastructure (a PV kW is likely delivered to a very localized section of the grid), social engineering (wealthier people are more likely to have PV plants and can therefore subsidize others), peak demand costs that the utility is able to shed, and continued efforts to incentivize renewable energy. This policy, however, has another implication which is that a renewably produced kWh is somehow different from an unused kWh realized through efficiency gains.
For example, I might choose to change the thermostat set point to reduce energy costs at the expense of my comfort. I could also invest capital in additional insulation, radiant barriers, solar water heating, timers, occupancy detectors, or a myriad of other systems. The result would be that each day, the electrical meter would record a few less kWh and the utility would realize less revenue while their infrastructure costs remain the same. Alternatively, I might choose to invest the same capital in a small wind turbine or a few kW of PV. Either investment produces the same result – the utility receives less revenue while their costs remain fixed. However, under the SunCredit policy, only 57% of the renewable energy investment potential is realized. The likely result will be reduced investment in PV generation (I know I have cancelled plans to add to the system).
It could be said that the difference between a renewable and a saved kWh is in its potential to be metered. Rate structures currently in use by the local utility can only be applied to a metered item, so the only way for the utility to maintain its infrastructure is to bias the rate structure against PV using SunCredits.
The SunCredit approach seems ultimately flawed, however. At some point, PV generation and storage may become inexpensive enough so that many people will opt for off-grid rather than grid connected approaches. Eventually, relatively few grid users could be left to pay for the infrastructure. Highway departments appear to be suffering a similar problem as automobiles use less gasoline per mile, the taxes available for maintaining the highways diminish.
So what’s to be done? One approach could be to adopt a policy similar to that practiced by the real estate industry to account for fixed asset costs. If you rent an office space, you are charged rent for that space, plus a surcharge for common area maintenance (CAM). The CAM is recomputed every year based on the costs incurred by the building divided by the number of tenants in the building (with some fudge factors applied for the type and amount of the space). Similarly, the utility would calculate their CIM (common infrastructure maintenance) and divide by the number of connected users, also using some fudge factors for the type of service. The CIM yearly costs would be spread over each monthly billing cycle for every connected user. In this manner, the infrastructure costs would be distributed among each user, not units of energy. Another approach could be to allow net metering only after a minimum monthly energy usage is met. The minimum usage would be based on the CIM costs and total kWh delivered throughout the grid.
Either approach would allow for excess energy to be credited at the retail rate. With an assurance that CIM costs are covered, the utility is free to allow unrestrained energy production into their grid. If the total energy produced by the customer’s PV plant exceeds the minimum usage value or the CIM cost, the PV plant owner could still enjoy a zero dollar electrical bill or obtain a credit while the utility continues to receive revenue when it sells the excess energy to someone else. In this manner installation of more PV capacity would be encouraged while simultaneously allowing the utility to recoup their infrastructure costs
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...snt-the-answer
Lots of article comments with lots of different viewpoints, most are serious.
Is it possible that they expect to see too much daytime power? more than they can use?
Not anytime soon. They are just focusing their solar attention on "solar farms" instead of distributed roof top solar and paying those crooks 11 cents a KWH at the source and then selling it to end users for 9.9 cents a KWH delivered.
Solyndra
CPS Energy Plan To Change Solar Credit Rate Outrages Advocates
CPS Energy is replacing its solar credit system that pays solar energy users with another program that pays slightly less, leaving some solar energy organizations and customers outraged.
CPS Energy customers currently pay 9.9 cents per kilowatt used, but people with solar energy on their home or business receive the same 9.9 cents back as a credit on their bill for every kilowatt they generate in a process called net-metering.
CPS Energy is proposing a plan called SunCredit that reduces that amount to a solar energy market value. This year that value is 5.6 cents. CPS Energy Spokeswoman Christine Patmon said the change is to evenly distribute the cost of infrastructure like utility poles among customers.
"It’s unfair for customers who can’t afford solar to shoulder all of the costs of infrastructure alone," Patmon said.
Lanny Sinkin, executive director of Solar San Antonio, disagrees with that statement.
"That’s a problem in California in some utility areas where you have a 20 percent penetration rate of solar energy," Sinkin said. "In other words, solar is delivering 20 percent of the total energy. At that point you have problems with the maintenance and operation of the system because so many people are on solar. In San Antonio, we have about 8 megawatts of solar distributed in a system that’s more than 7000 megawatts."
Sinkin said CPS Energy did not appropriately reach out to solar customers on what would be a fair rate, and certain solar projects are being put on hold because of the announcement.
http://tpr.org/post/cps-energy-plan-...ages-advocates
Solar Advocates Unite To Oppose CPS Energy's Solar Credit Changes
San Antonio’s solar power industry is collectively fighting back against a plan by CPS Energy to lower a credit given to solar energy users.
Solar interests are calling for CPS Energy to backtrack on its decision to introduce SunCredit, a program that would reduce an existing dollar-for-dollar credit on generating solar energy.
Lanny Sinkin, executive director of Solar San Antonio, told a group of solar project managers and home owners that the utility is willing to meet with a small group of them to talk about what options are on the table.
"I’m recommending that we do pursue the idea of a small delegation that meets with them, that we start the discussion on these issues, that we insist the discussion be a broader discussion than just SunCredit," Sinkin said. "We’re happy to discuss SunCredit and it’s flaws, of which there are many."
Sinkin said the proposed SunCredit plan is most unfair to current solar users.
"These are people who made investments based on numbers they were told. Now you’re changing the numbers and reducing the return on investment, we don’t think that’s fair and it’s probably not legal," Sinkin said.
He is proposing solar advocates and CPS Energy form a solar working group to work out another method. The plan under CPS Energy would credit 5.6 cents per kilowatt to solar energy users, which is about 4 cents lower than the current rate.
The utility’s argument for a lower rate is that it helps pay for the cost of utility poles and other infrastructure. Current solar energy customers will be grandfathered in for ten years. If SunCredit goes through it will take effect in November.
CPS Energy will host a public meeting at La Villita on May 3 at 4 p.m. to allow people to voice their concerns.
http://tpr.org/post/solar-advocates-...credit-changes
Boo hoo.
It is their infrastructure. To sell energy back at the same rate is unreasonable. The initial incentive I believe is grandfathered, and they can't do it for everyone in the future.
CPS is municipally owned (not investor/Wall ST owned). so it's "San Antionians infrastructure".
With 100Ks of solar rooftops handling peak (cooling) electricity demand in hot summer months, CPS avoids spending $10Bs on new infrastructure like new nukes (one of which they already bungled, see above), coal plants, and water consumption.
The infrastructure is already in place, paid for, by (solar) electricity consumers.
As per WC's blind anti-democratic ideology, same as the JINO extremist Repug SCOTUS, he always supports, prefers ins utions ing over Human-Americans.
Austin, San Antonio dominate solar in Texas
Last week the Environment Texas Research and Policy Center issued a report finding that overwhelmingly two cities, Austin and San Antonio account for the majority of solar installed in Texas and it’s not just a small amount, fully 85 percent of solar in the large, sun-rich state is installed in the two cities.
The “Texas’ solar story is primarily a tale of two cities – San Antonio and Austin – with the rest of the state largely languishing in the shadow,” said Luke Metzger, Director of Environment Texas. “It’s time we reach for the sun and bring clean solar energy to the rooftops of all of Texas’ homes, schools and businesses.” The organization released the report during Texas’ biennial legislative session in an effort to help the legislature consider expanding solar programs.
The report, Reaching for the Sun: How San Antonio and Austin Are Showing that Solar Is a Powerful Energy Option for Texas, found that largely because of policies enacted by their local utilities, San Antonio, with 52.6 megawatts and Austin, with 41.3 megawatts, are the state’s largest markets for solar.
Both San Antonio and Austin have set aggressive goals for solar. In fact, San Antonio’s utility, CPS Energy, has plans to have largest municipally-owned photovoltaic project in the U.S., a 400 megawatt project through a partnership with OCI Solar Power, which is locating manufacturing facilities there. Austin’s utility, Austin Energy has also announced that it plans to go 35 percent renewable by 2020 and to install about 200 megawatts of solar as part of that goal.
Other cities in Texas lag far behind. The report found that the utility with the third largest amount of solar in the state is Oncor with 9.98 megawatts. The utility serves Dallas, Fort Worth and other areas, according to the study.
In the report, the center also cites a recent study by the Texas’ electric grid operator, ERCOT, which showed that solar and wind are the most cost-effective ways to meet the state’s growing electric needs on hot summer days. That study determined that solar and wind were more advantageous for power than even natural gas, according to the center.
To help ensure that happens, Environment Texas said there are a number of pieces of legislation wending their way through the capitol there to expand the amount of solar in the state. Among them are: HB 1094 SB 385, to update Texas’ Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing law; HB 723 to install of 1,500 megawatts of solar and renewable energy by 2022; HB 303 to require a 35 percent renewable portfolio standard with at least 2 percent from solar energy; SB 304 to require homebuilders offer solar energy as a standard option to their customers; and SB 305 to exempt solar installations from state sales tax.
http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/...n-texas-022213
I'm a realist. I understand that if you take profit out of capitalism, that the capitalists will stop building.
CPS Energy to Announce OCI as Developer of 400 MW Solar PV Plant
San Antonio is also the home of the 16.5 megawatt Blue Wing project. That project is owned by Duke Energy and the power is purchased by CPS Energy under a 30-year power purchase agreement.
CPS is "likely paying between 15 and 16 cents per kilowatt hour for its current solar power" and "this deal could be as much as 30 percent less," according to the San Antonio paper
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/CPS-Energy-to-Announce-OCI-as-Developer-of-400-MW-Solar-PV-Plant
So CPS is already paying centralized solar suppliers $0.10+ per Kwh to OCI and Blue Wing, but is screwing distributed rooftop solar.
CPS isn't capitalist, it's socialist, a public utility, a non-profit "socialisitically" owned by San Antonio government.
They still have to maintain the infrastructure.
Question.
Do you realize how much power loss is involved in giving energy back to them?
If the power loses 20% by the time it gets to you, and your every loses 20% by the time it gets to a different customer...
Be realistic.
Do you realize that solar rooftops, paid for by the consumer, supplying the building don't have the transmission loss to the building?
are diminishing the the need for CPS to invest in new nuke and coal?
As the articles I posted above show, distributed electricity generation is truly a disruptive technology, which is exactly why centralized suppliers like CPS resist it, not for your ing "transmission losses".
WC, you aren't getting it.
Here is a link to my system. (BTW it was cloudy yesterday) This is Texas. Our peak load is in the afternoon for air conditioning. When my system is overproducing in the afternoon it's going to my next door neighbors. CPS isn't having to generate and transmit that energy dozens of miles to my neighbors houses.
http://egauge4225.egaug.es/
As for these solar farms CPS is doing with these outside vendors they are paying THEM between 11 and 16 cents a KWH AT THE FARM that they then turn around and sell to consumers DELIVERED TO THEIR HOUSE for 9.9 cents. It's an insider scam.
THIS is very cool I like the link. Plus, by selling it to your neighbor, there are minimal transmission losses.
Are the es your AC cycling on?
I do have a question, though.... are they indeed selling the solar power to their customers at a price of 9.9 cents? I remember that for a while, you could optionally add wind power to your mix for x cents more and I (once) saw something similar for solar power. They called it windtricity and solaricity, respectively.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
