Reply With Quote
How would they be penalized?
Is there some law keeping people from installing them?
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 Ins ute, 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 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/bu...s&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 ing stuff up. TX is way behind in rooftop solar, as well as Repugs wanted to kill stimulus for wind power.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-19-2015 at 11:08 AM.
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 up everything they can.
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, totaling $18.5 billion in 2013"
I say, like normal, you are full of bull .
You offered no proof that solar customers pay an extra fee, and linked legitimate tax deductions.
you FULL OF and IDEOLOGICALLY STUPID
Arizona’s New Solar Charge Is ‘Unsupportable By Any Economic Analysis’
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/201...top-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.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-20-2015 at 09:24 AM.
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.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.
How otherwise, is the connection to the grid to be maintained?
For free?
red states, natch, esp sun-soaked, Repug- ed TX, "not applicable"
http://freeingthegrid.org/#state-grades/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-03-2015 at 10:05 AM.
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.
thinkprogress.borg
use to own a prius...dont see any savings man
now im back to petrol, still cant get that 5.5l/100km bull , still driving at 7.7l/100km
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 re ed 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.
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 . 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.
CC, weren't you also grandfathered in, before they made changes?
That's just what BigPharma / BigEnergy wants you to believe.
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".
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.
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
