NPR story on utilities fighting back against solar

[DanKegel]

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375404/tension-from-utility-companies-casts-a-shadow-on-rooftop-solar-industry

[Sunking]

That article is extremely biased and one sided you cannot call it news reporting. NPR is a horrible source for information. The real story is solar artificially raises electric rates and have not saved the utilities one dime in fuel cost or emissions. What companies do you know who are forced to buy a gizmo for the same price they sell it for, and even worse have to pay the solar owners money to build their system.

That is what they are pushing back against.

[DanKegel]

The guy they were interviewing had just written a story on the subject in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-sensing-threat-put-squeeze-on-booming-solar-roof-industry/2015/03/07/2d916f88-c1c9-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

That's why they had him on. (They probably should have linked to his story.)

The transition away from fossil fuels and to solar energy is going to be bumpy and tough on utilities, no doubt about it, and this story talks about some of the issues.

What they left out, perhaps, was how the new fees provide an incentive for solar users to also install local storage, which might have an even bigger impact on the utilities' bottom line.

[pleppik]

That article is extremely biased and one sided you cannot call it news reporting.

I agree that you can't really call it news reporting, since the actual reporting was done by the Washington Post reporter who was being interviewed (reporters interviewing other reporters about their reporting is one of my pet peeves).

But I'm curious about what in the story you thought was biased? Here's what I got from the article:

• Power companies are worried about the growth in residential solar and are trying to fight back politically
• Power companies are worried that rooftop solar has moved from expensive novelty to mainstream and will cut into their profits
• The main thing power companies are trying to do in response is impose new fees and surcharges on solar at the state level
• Conservative states have been surprisingly un-receptive to these new fees and surcharges, because of a coalition of free-market conservatives, evangelicals, and green-minded liberals
• Power companies claim that residential solar raises costs for everyone, and this claim is at least partially true
• Power companies are claiming that these increased costs hit poor and minority communities especially hard, and so are trying to partner with those communities to fight against residential solar
• Power companies are also worried that their business model may become obsolete, and don't yet know how to handle that possibility

To me at least, this reads like a fairly even-handed reporting of stuff most people who pay attention to solar issues already knew.

[solar pete]

Thats a +1 from me, cheers

[J.P.M.]

Thats a +1 from me, cheers

For which "side(s)" ? All?

[Sunking]

The guy they were interviewing had just written a story on the subject in the Washington Post:

That just makes it double biased. Utilities have no worries or fears about solar cutting into their generation as it is not possible. What they are pushing back against is being forced to provide service for free for a product they do not want or need. Solar is no different than any other co-generation operation like wind and hydro where the power is sold on the market at contract wholesale pricing. Today nationally that is about $40/Mwh or 4-cents per Kwh.

Solar on the other hand goberment forces utilities to pay retail prices for excess production, and also forces utilities to provide the transmission and distribution services for free. Utilities are now fighting to let the public know that and it raises electric rates to cover those losses and want to put a stop to it.

[solar pete]

I agree that you can't really call it news reporting, since the actual reporting was done by the Washington Post reporter who was being interviewed (reporters interviewing other reporters about their reporting is one of my pet peeves).

But I'm curious about what in the story you thought was biased? Here's what I got from the article:

• Power companies are worried about the growth in residential solar and are trying to fight back politically
• Power companies are worried that rooftop solar has moved from expensive novelty to mainstream and will cut into their profits
• The main thing power companies are trying to do in response is impose new fees and surcharges on solar at the state level
• Conservative states have been surprisingly un-receptive to these new fees and surcharges, because of a coalition of free-market conservatives, evangelicals, and green-minded liberals
• Power companies claim that residential solar raises costs for everyone, and this claim is at least partially true
• Power companies are claiming that these increased costs hit poor and minority communities especially hard, and so are trying to partner with those communities to fight against residential solar
• Power companies are also worried that their business model may become obsolete, and don't yet know how to handle that possibility

To me at least, this reads like a fairly even-handed reporting of stuff most people who pay attention to solar issues already knew.

Whoops, I didnt hit the right button earlier, but I mostly agree with this assessment, cheers all.

[DanKegel]

I take it you object to all forms of government regulation of utilities?

[J.P.M.]

That just makes it double biased. Utilities have no worries or fears about solar cutting into their generation as it is not possible. What they are pushing back against is being forced to provide service for free for a product they do not want or need. Solar is no different than any other co-generation operation like wind and hydro where the power is sold on the market at contract wholesale pricing. Today nationally that is about $40/Mwh or 4-cents per Kwh.

Solar on the other hand goberment forces utilities to pay retail prices for excess production, and also forces utilities to provide the transmission and distribution services for free. Utilities are now fighting to let the public know that and it raises electric rates to cover those losses and want to put a stop to it.

I'm not a big fan of gov. subsidies for anything - solar, oil, nuke power research, conservation subsidies, whatever, but:

By their definition of "overgeneration" my POCO pays much less than retail for my excess production. I pay them a min. of ~ $0.18/kWh for their product. They pay for excess at ~ $0.05/kWh. That's not a bitch, but it looks to me like if what you write about the gov. forcing utilities to pay retail prices for excess production is correct, somebody ought to blow in my POCO to the utility rate police. Maybe it's a definitional thing.

I appreciate the reality that the power grid is used as unlimited storage by residential solar generators. But, and at the the risk of oversimplification, a hypothetical: Suppose I have a load that never drops below, say, 3 kW. I invest in measures that lower that load to, say, 2 kW. From their end of it, what's the difference to the POCO whether the load reduction they see comes from generation or conservation ? In such a case, would it still be considered a POCO subsidizing something ? I'm just sayin'.

[DanKegel]

I think he's objecting to net metering where one gets full 1:1 credit for each kwh (it's the sweet deal I have).

That's definitely a subsidy, but one that was arguably necessary in the past to get the solar industry off the ground.

The future holds fewer sweet deals like that, for sure. The training wheels are coming off soon.

[Sunking]

I take it you object to all forms of government regulation of utilities?

No not all as all electric utilities are monopolies which they pay for via extreme taxes to the local governments for that privilege which is passed onto the customer.

Forcing a company to pay buy/sell at retail, provide free transmission, distribution, maintenance, administration cost, and sometimes subsidize users equipment cost is not Regulation. That is Tyranny mandated by the Federal government imposed on the states. Remember our Constitution is suppose to make the goberment fear the people and controlled by the people.

Look at the other side, Goberment utility providers. They are not required to let you interconnect, and if they do allow it are not required to net meter, and can charge you additional expenses for transmission, distribution, maintenance, and administration cost. Nor are they required to pay you one dime for any of your equipment. Nor do goberment utilities pay 1 penny for Franchise Monopoly tax or regulated by state utility commissions. Interesting huh?

[J.P.M.]

I think he's objecting to net metering where one gets full 1:1 credit for each kwh (it's the sweet deal I have).

That's definitely a subsidy, but one that was arguably necessary in the past to get the solar industry off the ground.

The future holds fewer sweet deals like that, for sure. The training wheels are coming off soon.

I'm a fan of alternate energy. I changed careers mostly because of it.

I appreciate the opinion that subsidies get stuff off the ground.

I also see a lot of similarities between subsidies and enabling behavior that does more harm than good.

I'd like to see the solar industry in effect, get out of it's parent's basement, mature, survive and thrive on its own (if it can).

I'm of the opinion that the solar industry would be stronger and consumers better off if subsidies of any kind never existed.

[Sunking]

JPM you are a smart guy, I know from private conversations we have had. Like me you are educated in engineering and understand the physics involved and do not get wrapped up in hype and distractions like a laymen get caught up in and loose site of the end means

So here is a simple question for you. Be honest:

How important is EROI in energy production?

[DanKegel]

I also see a lot of similarities between subsidies and enabling behavior that does more harm than good.

As long as they are set to decline to zero over time, they're relatively benign. It's the ones that never go away you have to watch out for.
See for instance http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html