Why should the utility pay more for solar power generated by a homeowner than power from a power plant? I am in the middle on this issue.
The utility has to maintain the distribution system and pay for the power plants 24/7. If a home owner wants to get the same rate for his generated kw as the utility charges him..pull the plug. But they can’t do that since their usage peaks and falls..and they can’t cheaply store the power.
Utilities are monopolies that are politically regulated..fact of life.
” Instead of receiving 15 cents per kilowatt-hour rebates for power the solar users send back to the grid, APS wants to reduce the rebate to 4 to 10 cents. This would add $50 to $100 a month to the power bills of solar users. The utility also wants to start charging solar users a monthly maintenance fee.”
Since I am paying between 6 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour depending on the time of day (budget billing), I think maybe the 15 cents per hour might be a little steep. Maybe the 4 to 10 cent rate is the more realistic figure. That said, I also am against any "maintance fee" from the power companies.
How much does electricity cost in Arizona? Locally (and maybe for the entire state of Ohio) the generation charge is separate from the delivery charge and you can contract with other companies for the generation. I just contracted for 5.66¢/kWh for the next two years. Since the wiring costs the same on the delivery side whether I'm receiving or sending power, I would expect to net less than that for any power I generate if I had solar panels, windmills or could attach the idiot squirrels in my neighborhood to treadmills.
What is typically ignored by those who want to sell their solar power back to the grid with this claim, they are actually using the APS infrastructure to sell their power without paying for the building and maintenance of the equipment necessary to do so.
It cost to move the power out, just as it cost to move the power in.
Net Metering, as setup in California, allows homeowners to bank excess production during peak sunlight period of the day. This is done on a kilowatt per kilowatt basis. Both the utility and the homeowner benefit, to a point, since the excess production is typically during the period of peak demand, or slightly after. Any excess production is compensated at the wholesale rate, probably 2 to 4 cents per kwh, but not sure about that. Obviously this was setup by legislators to encourage more solar, and to reduce the need for generated power. Whether this is sustainable for the utilities long-term is debatable, especially since the utilities must have a reserve production capability to offset cloudy days when solar production is significantly reduced. Same problem applies to wind power.
I have solar power with Net Metering, a system that I installed personally, not for any altruistic reason, but for simple economics. The utilities in CA have a tiered rate structure where they decide how much you will pay for each kilowatt depending on the tier, starting at about `13 cents/kwh rising to 32 cents/kwh if you’re a bad consumer and reach tier 5, as I do. I adamantly oppose this, admittedly for selfish reasons, because I work at home, and during the summer that would be impossible absent A/C, which I’ve upgraded to achieve greater efficiency. I also have computer servers that run 24/7. My electric bill always exceeded $500/mo during the summer. I just received my annual adjustment bill and paid about $10 since I slightly under produced what I estimated I needed for the year.
I calculated my solar production capacity to annually match consumption, or slightly over produce, using that objective to evaluate return on investment, although I missed the mark by a few kilowatts and was charged $10 for the year.
In my narrow minded way of thinking, each kilowatt should be priced the same, just like most other commodities, such as gasoline, at the same rate for all residential and commercial users.
Good or bad, now is not the time to change the rules, in AZ , CA or any other state, at least not for existing systems where owners made the investment based on existing rules.
Er, no. It will mean homeowners can no longer force an unwilling buyer to pay government fixed prices for energy homeowners produce but do not use.
There are no innocent parties in this dispute. One side is trying to preserve their free lunch. The other is trying to steal their french fries.
Wow, ignorance abounds even on Townhall. Net metering would be fine if APS were allowed to negotiate the price with the the home owner and more importantly if the home owner had to pay the full price of the solar panels rather than having the solar panels subsidized heavily by taxpayers and by APS and then by extension the non-solar customers of APS.
As a tax and rate payer, why should I be forced to subsidize someone putting solar on their home? Without stealing money for installation from me and others solar is not competitive. Some of my local friends have installed solar. They are staunch conservatives. When I ask them what gives them the right to steal from others for their benefit the reply is it’s the law. When I ask them what gives them the moral right to steal from others for their benefit they reply, it’s the law. When I say the law cannot make thievery moral or just they mumble platitudes and try to laugh it off. Folks, this is a far larger problem then net metering. It speaks to the soul of our people. At its core it is simple...thou shall not steal. Both sides need to apply the commandment to their actions.
Interesting. How about states that receive a lot of snow which the sun cannot penetrate? This sounds like someone who is all for solar energy. She doesn’t seem to realize this country needs all types of energy to make things work.