Utility Wants To Charge Solar Panel Users For Not Using Their Energy
from the that's-what's-called-chutzpah dept
There are banks that have worked out ways to charge you both for using and for not using your account enough, but hearing about Midwest utility Xcel Energy trying to justify its reasoning for charging homes with solar panels for not using their services is just mindbogglingly ridiculous:"We just don't think it's fair that customers that don't have solar panels on their homes should subsidize these solar panel customers any further."No, that doesn't make any sense. After all, isn't the whole point of those with solar panels being that they don't need much (if any) energy from the utility? I know in many places, the local utility will actually buy excess solar energy from home owners. But, here we are again with "entitlement society" at work. The idea, via Xcel, is that it's somehow owed its fees -- and if people are willing to go with an alternative, then they need to keep paying up anyway.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: electric power, fees, solar power, utility
Companies: xcel energy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Heck, if they started charging non-solar users extra for their demand on the grid, it would encourage solar uptake. Which is what we all want.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Let's face it, the vast majority of companies really only care about their bottom line. Most socially or environmentally responsible companies are only as responsible as it is fiscally beneficial to them. For these, social and environmental efforts are a marketing expense. It still falls to the smart consumer to discern whether the company they are buying from is truly responsible or just has a veneer of responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
It is only an issue when they produce for themselves alone. If users are producing and feeding power back on the grid, the power companies pay well under their true costs for the power, which means actually improved profits. If they can cut back their higher cost production and buy from lower priced providers, the bottom line improves.
It's all in the way that you look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
This is the last thing energy companies want .... suburbia and the boonies going green .... It would lose them both production and distribution profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
One third of power lost is in the transmission. When solar panels are used, power is distributed locally, with lower loss in transmission. In the mean time, the end consumers still get charged as if the transmission was over the full distance. It costs the power company less to allow the producers on the grid.
Where electricity markets allow for peak hour price increases, usually during the day when AC is blasting and solar production is at its peak, power companies do not need to pay producers full market rates. They can arbitrage the solar power, making additional money without additional cost.
In areas like California where in state production is not enough to meet demand, power companies must purchase from out of state sources at higher rates. The long distance transmission losses is on their dime, resulting in higher costs for the power company.
As solar production exceeds total demand, the economics change. However, in current US markets, having additional solar power on the grid is more profitable for power companies. I can certainly be wrong, but I'd like to see counter examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
I cannot edit my previous comment, but would like to clarify and say that the profits on the energy put into the grid from locally produced solar panels are higher than they would be from centrally generated sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
As for purchasing the power, most have to purchase from the consumer at the rate at that time meaning no profit. If you want to function as producer, learn to deal with the lower charge.
Also, solar ends up making things more expensive. Basically what this means is when power is purchased, a certain amount is required to be generated. When it can't be met, the cleanest generation method (nuclear) can't be spun up instantly, so coal / oil is used which isn't necessarily cheap nor clean. So when you are providing power and suddenly it gets cloudy, expensive alternatives must be brought in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Two ways. 1) solar panel installations are very heavily subsidized through tax incentives and outright rebates.
2) Solar users are not permanently off the grid. They produce power for themselves during daytime low demand periods and sell excess power into the system when it's least needed and are paid at prime rates for it that are much higher than the utilities own generating costs. Then they take power from the system in the evenings and mornings during peak periods. As a result, the utilities have to keep the same amount of generating capacity online as if they were there in case it rains or is too overcast or have any other problem. Those costs are passed on to all ratepayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsidize solar panels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Subsidize solar panels
They do not charge all land owners just residential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
Well, it's supposed to be the utility. But they haven't. The few folks who DO solar to supplement their power are not the ones killing the grid. It's, once again, short sighted execs. The ones who now want the government (i.e., us) to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
They are the distributor. They should buy from you at a lowere price, and selling to consumers at a higher price. The difference pays to maintain their infrastructure and address their profit.
When you take out of the grid, you should be paying that distribution markup. It is a convenience for you (saving you from having to maintain batteries, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
1. I doubt they buy at the same rate they sell
2. Perhaps a monthly connection fee then is appropriate?
Claiming that solar panel users are somehow "cheating" cause the util hasn't taken this into account in their billing structure is blaming the wrong person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
Please for the love of all things good and sane never, ever comment on this site again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Subsidize solar panels
To restate: If a person produces enough energy such that the credit he receives during the day equals the cost of usage during the night and if a very large number of consumers did this, how would the power company deal with this loss of revenue?
Cynic's reply "if everyone did this no one would be using the grid" is, well, incorrect.
Consumers are not storing their own energy to use later, bypassing the grid, here they become grid suppliers.
Solar power used this way acts like many other non-storage production already on the grid in the way that it has a maximum potential at any given time to supply the grid, but if there is not enough demand the supply will never give %100 of it capabilities.
For example: a power plant has a capacity of 500MW, yet the consumers on the part of the grid that the plant supplies are only using 200MW at a given time. The plant does not receive credit for the 500MW capacity, but only the 200MW that is being pumped into the grid. This is a bit simplified, but basically how it works. therefor plant managers carefully regulate the plants capacity to match the grid demand so there is minimum overproduction.
If consumers are receiving credit for energy placed into the grid it IS being used by someone else at that time, therefor the business managers of the distribution company will still make a hefty profit during daytime hours, less resources used by their plants, low cost local power supplied by solar, and selling that power for more than its cost.
During nighttime the grid will operate much as it always has with commercial plants producing and residents using that power.
Therefor even though the net cost to residents using solar cells might be extremely low, maybe even zero, the distribution company will still make a very nice profit.
and people will still use the grid.
DanOfSoCal: very good question, post as much as you want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Subsidize solar panels
Loss of income? Oh, no!! We can't have that! That's why employers should also be prohibited from dismissing employees. Otherwise, how would employees deal with a loss of income?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
Everyone will not put solar on there homes/apts and in certain areas it's not cost eff. They are still very expensive and if you near a lot trees and /or several other factor play into ... should you get solar panels. Most homes/business will always be tied to the grid 50 to 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
This is how I figured it would go down when being asked to be more self-sufficient and energy savers. Now we get monitoring meters and charged for the hell of it.
Just because I use my own I should not be required
to pay for the neighbors. Kind of like healthcare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidize solar panels
Tell us.
Hey someone needs to upkeep the grid. We have to charge for that service.
None of the double talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sort of have to read a little further to see. It would appear that they charge only for electicity used, and not for a grid connection. So for users who are connected to the grid but don't use any power, there is no fee. The power company appears to be moving to charge a minimum fee to remain connected.
The consumerist blog is a little off on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a good day so far, and I don't want to think about that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Henley said the fee is a preventative measure to ensure that, down the road, solar customers do not get free rides."
Lets ignore the fact that solar panels are not free and take forever to pay themselves off, obviously don't work 24 hours out of the day, and in fact only helping out by doing their own little minor part in bringing down power drain on the grid reducing operating and maintenance costs.
Where he gets off saying that people using less resources of the power plant will increase other people's bills is just so freaking stupid it's hurting my head.
And NO shut up! oil prices went down, my electric bill went down, mild winter and mild summer, electric bill went down cause less people were using it! BS that more people using power will cause some sort of bizarro world reverse supply and demand dynamic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I routinely get charged for not using power.
They can just up the fees for low-watt users.
GaNaturalGas is worse, charging me about $32 each month for the privilege of Natural Gas heat.
Water company has also learned this little trick and started charging Environmental Impact cost and a cost for the pipe size coming to my house, $7 for a 3/4inch pipe connection.
So, If I go on vacation, shut off power, natural gas and water, I still get billed almost $50 a month. (Not counting taxes on the fees).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is, however, capitalism at it's finest. So even though I think it's BS, I gotta give it up to 'em for that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm merely referring to getting as much money as they can.
I am NOT referring talking about the "no-fair" attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, actually it is not. It is only a government-granted-and-regulated monopoly that allows them to do it in the first place. If there were actually competition, there is no way this practice would fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The government's involvement completely destroys all free-market/capitalism mechanisms that would prevent or deal with the abuse of, ahem, power that we are seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
last i checked it was who could abuse the system the best came out on top
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd say it's capitalism run amok, rather that at it's finest.
And no, this isn't socialism either. The utility companies bought and paid for their monopolies. That's what happens when unbridled capitalism meets gov't: you get the best gov't money can buy. It works pretty well for the banks and telcos too. If you don't like it, try to out bid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weren't you just criticizing "fact checking"?
and in a pure market analysis, unless the consumer buys a ton of batteries, the consumer still needs the power company more than the power company needs the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: weren't you just criticizing "fact checking"?
And guess what? They *pay* for the power they use at night. They don't get it for free, you know.
it still costs something to maintain the gear (the lines, the net meter installation, and servicemen).
Yeah, and it costs the homeowner to maintain his solar cells, inverters, etc. Now if he sells power back to the utility, then the utility becomes "the customer" in that deal. So perhaps the homeowner should collect a "connection fee" from the utility as well. Then the two fees can cancel each other out.
$1.90 is more than reasonable as a maintenance fee... especially when you compare it to getting cable internet without cable tv (usually $30+).
What kind of argument is that? What the hell does that have to do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you completely remove yourself from the grid, fine. You should pay for nothing.
Otherwise, if you're still connected to the grid you should pay your fair share of grid maintenance, load demand and other charges. Paying on a kw-hr basis won't distribute that cost equitably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, as long as the fee is "reasonable", it's the right thing to do!
If the fee is unreasonable, then let the solar revolt (pardon the pun) begin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the same token then the power utility should pay a connection fee to you to pay their fair share of maintenance on your equipment. Paying on a kWhr basis won't distribute that cost equitably either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja Fuel
"I can't wait until I hear some energy exec whining in an interview about how people shouldn't be allowed to own and operate Mr. Fusions because it's destroying his business."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xcel Energy
Please excuse the rant. The management of Xcel Energy, based on this article, is stupid.
My honest opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Xcel Energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a simple monopolistic grift. The only answer is to drill your own well, and go off the grid. Until they tax you for putting in a rain barrel in your backyard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Land of the Free my @ss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does he happen to also be connected to their sewage system? Sewage treatment rates are usually based on water usage because sewage is difficult to meter directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't understand Western water rights. Water rights, mineral rights and the land they're under may be owned by three or more different entities. Each with very specific legal rights. Your friends dad probably only has rights to pump a specific amount of water. Exceed that and you're taking someone elses water and that can get very expensive in dry areas. The meter is to track that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In most rural locations, the property has a septic tank, so there would be no sewer connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Until they tax you for putting in a
> rain barrel in your backyard.
Guess what...in Australia they do!! Well, it's an urban myth at least that if you install a rain tank and apply for some rebate from the Government, a levy is applied to your water bills. Can't recall the exact explanation as to why you should be charged for this, but sounds like a typical Government "good idea" to me that if it's not true deserves to be so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We got a friend who has no services in his home - he provides all his own - green as green can be. Our town hasn't seen fit to charge him for not using any of their services...but then, he's totally off the grid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Them charging you a fee to be used as a battery is perfectly reasonable. Without the connection to the grid their system of using solar panels wouldn't work on it's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
1. The government: Well, then fuck you, Mr. Edison. I already pay to maintain the grid, and you sure as shit aren't going to charge me as a powerbroker if my net use of power is 0 or in the negative. You can try to charge me all you want, but let's get in front of a trial jury. You can wave your hands around, have your lawyers do their little Shaman monkey-dances and explain away why this makes sense. I'll get in front of them, point to you, and say, "They want to charge me for not using their power. That is all."
2. A govt. subsidized utility firm(s), purposely monopolized through deregulation: a slightly less strong fuck you to Mr. Edison. I still think you're full of shit, but since you've purposely muddied the waters so badly that you can make the argument that the sky is orange, all I'm going to ask is that you allow an independent 3rd party do a study on the cost per household for grid connection, add 1% for your trouble, and then charge me that price, locked in for 3 years. After 3 years, we can do another study.
3. The Mole People: I've always known that are utilities were actually managed and maintained by underground mole people! I just knew it! As a result, I promise to give you free candied pecans and allow you to watch cable TV on a sofa chair for all eternity! Doug the Mole Man lives! Someone call Shavuhl!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
And that's a big one. If they had to actually buy or lease all that property, especially in prime markets, it would dwarf the rest of their costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solar Charge??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solar Charge??
_______
Small boat trailers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
almost magic?
"Mike Jacoby, who installed solar panels on the roof of his home two years ago, bristled at the notion that he is not doing his part.
Jacoby said the installation cuts his monthly electrical fee by anywhere from 33 to 50 percent a month. In return, his home acts as a power plant, generating energy for Xcel that can power some of the homes on his block.
"Mine are generating enough to feed five or six houses around me electricity, so there's no free ride," said Jacoby."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charge for not using solar panels
I see this as they know they are about to lose their cash cow , so now they are trying to breath life back into it......at our cost......I really hope Obama steps in here and tells them to deal
after all if I buy a solar or any other power generator why should they profit??
after all "I bought it not them!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALready paid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALready paid
Some people would like to forget about that. Especially the ones with some power utility stocks in their portfolio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All the time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next they will charge...
So if I switch to line drying for my clothes, get a super efficient washer, and a super refrig, then my bill will go down, but the utility will then force me to pay an "insufficient use" surcharge?
Do the utilities really want people to become more energy efficient? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsidize solar panels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone has to maintain the wires...
The only real problem with how this was presented was just that - presentation. The power company guys couldn't be bothered to figure out how to present this so that people wouldn't think they were being jerks.
Here's my suggestion:
"We're going to be breaking out the costs on everyone's bill, so you can see how much you are paying for generation, as opposed to distribution. You'll see a reduction on the per-kwh rate for the first N kwh each month. Overall, you'll pay the same amount of money, it will just look different on your bill."
With that, they've moved the maintenance costs out where you can see them. Then when someone comes up with a net zero for generation, they still end up paying for maintenance, unless they want to disconnect. And since it was done without reference to zero-bill customers, the company doesn't end up looking like total jerks.
Obviously, you need to make the math work out so that the normal users don't lose any money on the deal (or you get crucified for stealth rate raises).
The really INTERESTING thing here is the fact that the power company is actually in 2 businesses - generation (or buying) of power, and distribution of power. They are related, but separate. In the past, since they were so linked (and you couldn't get one without the other), they could just charge one rate. In the future, where you might want access to their services (incurring the full 'distribution' costs), but where you might make your own power (at least some of the time), the power company needs to charge separately for these services.
This is similar to the problem faced by professional photographers today. It used to be that if you wanted good pictures, you not only needed someone to shoot well, but also to print them well. So photographers rolled everything into one cost. Now a days, I can print them more than well enough for my uses on my inkjet printer. So how does the photographer make money in a world where no one wants to pay him for the processing? The only sensible thing is to charge for what he's actually good at that his customer's aren't - the taking of the photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standby Charges
Anyway, buying batteries to store the excess you produce during the daylight hours will quickly convince you that the grid offers something of value.
There's no free lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standby Charges
NOW WITH 30% MORE OVERUSED ANALOGIES!
Say more & mean less!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Standby Charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same kind of struggle in France
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/07/22/frances-complicated-relationship-with-effici ency/
Text of the french administrative decision (with some pictures):
http://www.cre.fr/fr/content/download/8808/155078/file/090709Effacementsdiffus.pdf
There's not enough information available for me (yet) to sort out what this means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same kind of struggle in France
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/07/22/frances-complicated-relationship-with-effici ency/
Text of the french administrative decision (with some pictures):
http://www.cre.fr/fr/content/download/8808/155078/file/090709Effacementsdiffus.pdf
There's not enough information available for me (yet) to sort out what this means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you dont like the charge
Don't pay that fee and see how fast you are complaining that you don't have power when the first hail storm breaks up your little solar panel, or the first week of rain and you cannot generate enough to heat your coffee.
The fee isn't to make them rich, it's to cover the costs that exist to keep that power available to you and for you to sell that power to them. Perhaps it would be better if you bought your own meters, paid for all your own wiring all the way to the substation.
The law says they have to buy back the excess you generate, it doesn't say they have to pay the costs for you to feed that excess back into the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you dont like the charge
Great idea, now we just need to allow it. Either let other companies build their own power grids, or designate the routes as public (since they require public space) and split the cost among whomever wants to provide power over them.
Otherwise, Xcel has a monopoly that allows them to dictate prices without any incentive to keep them low. Solar cells have techological limitations that prevent most of us from relying on them exclusively, but that doesn't mean that the public should be helpless against whichever company the government gave the utility rights to. They should be perfectly able to adapt their business model for the time being to utilize solar energy supplementation in lieu of fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you dont like the charge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying for not using isn't all that uncommon.
As for electricity, they 'sort of' deregulated a few years back. We have a monopoly distributor and our choice of several electric generators. Wouldn't you know it, 80% of our electric bill is for distribution and not choosing a supplier (the standard offer) gets you the best rate. Of course there is only a $0.2-$0.5 difference in the rates offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Green Vs What we need?
Would be so harmful to have free energy? It's a concept in plenty of movies that has some power hungry ass hole at the top of it or wanting to destroy it.
The concept that everything eventually has a 0 market value somewhere does exist. Yet those who drink wine have an inane sense that wine is going to be drank 50 years from now. -Some futuristic Anime.
Next stop personal water filtration system? I know my county flier of what's in my water is none to.. up stressing. (Side note Sodium Fluoride is #1 ingredient in rat poison.)
All I know is its something we strive for; Self-reliance is a virtue, remember that next time you pay any bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Green Vs What we need?
Sucks to be your logic teacher!
Also, I think you're thinking of Sodium fluoroacetate, not Sodium fluoride. Toxic in large enough doses, but then so is the aforementioned DM.
Sucks to be your science teacher! :)
So why won't wine be drunk in 50 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most power companies don't pay for solar power
Most take it and give you "credit" towards power in the future, but this "credit" is wiped out either monthly or yearly.
Some others will pay a fraction of the retail cost of the power when they wipe the credit, but it is so low it dosen't amount to anything.
The only power company in the US that buys power at full retail price that I have been able to find is the Florida Keys Power Cooperative.
Power companies buying renewable power from individuals makes great headlines, but the facts don't back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This actually makes some sense to me
When you pay for anything on a rated scale, the overhead costs associated with running the the company is baked into that rate. While green energy alternatives are great, at present, they don't actually remove any of the overhead costs for the energy companies. (We may get to a point where this happens, we just aren't there yet.)
The inevitable side effect is, rates go up. The more and more people who move to green alternatives, the fewer people paying the increased rates, and they must go up again.
Now, if people adding green alternatives was actually also enabling a reduction in overhead costs associated with running the hydro company, that'd be a different story. Ironically, I actually suspect if anything there's been an increase in administrative overhead due to the increased adoption of green alternative consumers plugged into the grid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This actually makes some sense to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no really
To make sure i'm getting billed do I need an address?
Now if they are going to send me a bill then they will need to run the power lines to the cabin (+67K was what i was quoted)thats roughly 1k per pole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no really
If you want to be on the grid, pay the 67k it would cost, and then you can sell power back to the utility - but they will still charge you a connection fee to maintain your connection.
Next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no really
Correct, in the case of one person. However, if everyone did the same ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopolies are Greedy
The cable companies insist that television revenues subsidize Internet service and the non-user fee is to make up the loss of revenue.
Personally I think this is like sending out invoices to companies that did not hire me because they still cost me job search expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopolies are Greedy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
It appears that the company is merely talking about charging a tiny (the article says less than $2) flat connection fee for the security and convenience of being being hooked up to their electrical grid.
Don't get me wrong; I *do* think that this fee is unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive. it's just not totally absurd, stupid, or evil as Mike implies.
What's wrong with charging this fee? Simple. All that the energy company needs to do is operate like any other business: buy energy from customers who are currently producing extra, and sell it to people who aren't... but obviously, sell the energy for more than you pay for it. That way, even if everyone gets solar panels and becomes energy-neutral, the (re)distribution company still remains profitable while providing a valuable service; the only difference is that they're sourcing their energy from customers instead of power plants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maintaince? Either you're obtuse or a turfer
Most of the infrastructure costs are either ignored, or past onto customers, developers, and/or the local municipality.
How about this, they can charge maintenance when they start paying property taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you guys dont understand is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you want connection, you pay for connection
To put it another way, image if everyone in your town but you went solar. You would be paying huge fees to keep everyone elses lines running, this is a way to of set that cost as solar and the like become more popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in the North East - Separation of Usage and Infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misconceptions
Power companies aren't going to complain all that much if a percentage of residential users reduce their energy consumption. Not now. Why? Well, for one thing, commercial customers make up a large percentage of our customer base and they aren't likely to go away. But it's also because with all the new environmental regulations that utilities are subjected to, power companies are being asked to invest heavily in infrastructure - billions on emissions scrubbers and new plants that produce electricity more cleanly than the old fossil plants. In my state, we're also subjected to laws that require a specific percentage of our energy production to come from renewable sources in the next 15-20 years. Which means buying up power from solar and wind farms, despite the fact that those farms usually generate a very small fraction of the power needed in a region. A percentage of residential customers moving off the grid would not be a bad thing to us... it might mean that we could eliminate the need to spend billions on new scrubbers or that we could decommision old fossil plants to get us closer to our emissions requirements without buildign pricier, cleaner replacements.
It's absurd to suggest that customers connected to the grid should somehow be exempt for paying for the upkeep of the distribution system. A power grid is complex and is expected to reach every home, regardless of the cost to the company to connect the remotest of sites. As users of the grid, its reasonable to expect everyone to pay for its maintenance. It's not as if the utility take three times as long to turn your power back on after a hurricane because you buy three times less power than the average consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misconceptions
My parents had an older house in a mid-size city that originally had no air conditioning. When they wanted to add air conditioning a few years ago, the wires from the utility company weren't large enough to handle the load and my parents had to pay the cost straight out of their own pockets to upgrade the lines and even install new poles to hold them. Now remember, this was in the city. So much for claim that the utility company picks up the tab "regardless of the cost to the company to connect the remotest of sites." That's just pure bunk.
Now a few years later the utility has added a new charge to their monthly bills: a line charge. That's right, the utility is charging a monthly fee for the very lines my parents paid for. So they're being paid for twice.
And from what I understand, when a developer puts in a new subdivision, the developer has to pay for the installation water, sewage, gas, and electrical utility service also. Not the utility companies.
And as for truly remote locations, I bet you were hoping no one would mention that the federal gov't provides funding for installation of electrical distribution systems to serve rural areas of the United States, weren't you?
I don't know what you're job with a power company is (lobbyist maybe?), but telling half truths is no way to clear up "misconceptions" as you called it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misconceptions
Uh, yes, that's how it seems to work where I live. I remember one large storm that knocked out power to a lot of people in my area. The power company prioritized which customers would be reconnected first. First there were customers that were essential to health and safety, like the hospitals, police and water system, of course, and they had these all back online within hours. But then after that your place in line did indeed depend on how large a customer you were and the largest commercial customers were first. Then, when they finally got down to the residential customers, I noticed that they even started with the more affluent neighborhoods first and worked their way down from there. It took several weeks for them to finally get to mine. When they did, it only took them lees than an hour to fix it (they had to splice the line back together and replace the fuse). So basically, I was without power for several weeks because they didn't want to bring in an outside storm crew (expensive) to do a one hour job for a street full of lowly residential customers. I guess that would have eaten into profits and it was cheaper to have us offline for a while than to fix it.
And the thing is, it was really the power company's fault the electricity on my street was out in the first place. You see, back before deregulation they used come through once a year trimming back the kind of tree branches that knocked the power out on my street to begin with. But then after deregulation they stopped doing that kind of preventative maintenance. The only time a tree limb gets trimmed now is *after* it knocks the power out, which happens quite often these days. It seems they figured out that they could sacrifice reliability in order to increase profits. Of course, it's not like there's another power company I could go to. Yea deregulated monopolies. And yes it does take them longer to restore power to the little people than the big commercial customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Misconceptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charging for non-use
If enough residents install solar panels and they insist on an absentee fee to keep their cronies in high-paying jobs,threaten a class action lawsuit and write your Congressman.
That's a start, but it needs to be a class-action suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the companies owners had a brain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power companies charging you for not using electricity.
SCUMBAGS.
I remember about 50 years ago my mother told me about a neighbor she had when she was a kid in the 30's who had put an Crane generator on a windmill.
He used these big spot lights that were on it.
2 on the windmill and 2 in the barn.
And these 2 big throw switches like in the movie Frankenstein
Almost every night at dusk he turned on the 2 on the windmill.
About a year went by and the electric company got wind of it.
They thought he was stealing electricity from them at first and wanted to know where the wires were leading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they really serious about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solar panels not in use not even on the roof
getting g charged for non working solar panels they took them done due to damage on the roof never put them back up been getting charged every month for almost a year now I call them no answers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]