Vivint and First Solar may leave Nevada after PUC votes.

[Sunking]

Do you have any references for this? I tried doing my own research, but all I can find is "tin-foil hat" information for people worried about the health effects of EMF.

Common knowledge because all GT Inverters use Modified Sin Wave or Pulse Width Modulation. I am not talking about EMF, I could care less about EMF and the effect of it. . I am talking Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and the havoc Solar created on HF radio bands. In California it is impossible to use AM radio (160 meters) up to 7 Mhz called the 40 meter bands. Ham radio operators have to wait until dark to operate efficiently. During the day in populated area thee HF band is unusable due to solar power. The FCC who normally gaurds RF is told by the White House to stand down and not do their job just like DEA is told to stand down and not do their job by the white house.

So instead of searching for EMF, try RFI. It wil take you years to go through all of it. It is well known fact.

[FFE]

I do understand the costs to produce and distribute electricity. The current system is different than other utilities. The scheme that is commonly used in the US is similar to paying for generation and leasing the distribution system. This doesn't make sense since the grid is not used up. It needs to be maintained to all customers almost equally wether one uses 100kWh or 10MWh per year. My post was directed to people that did understand the costs. If the current scheme is kept, then I propose to pay solar generators at retail for their generation and pass the transmission charges to users. The POCO still makes a profit on the transmission and doesn't pass excessive cost to users. Why retail? Electrical generation is an allowed monopoly and solar generators should be allowed in on the government permitted profit from generation. Yes, I would get less reimbursement for what I generate. I can't figure out why the POCO pays me for ditribution even though they distribute it. I assume it is a way of subsidizing solar. I am taking advantage of it while I can. I sleep well at night knowing that the utilities commission is forcing others to pay for my clean energy and subsidize the poor.

If you read my original post the way I meant it. The POCO should charge everyone for the infrastructure required to ditribute power to and from their house at a fixed cost. Similar to how some water companies do. They charge a high fixed cost to have their water and sewer connected and then charge for how much you use. Good luck convincing everyone that they should pay about half of their pre PV fall/spring bill as a fixed cost. And then the utility can charge and pay retail to customers for generation for the aforementioned reasons. This would not make PV owners very happy.

[Sunking]

I do understand the costs to produce and distribute electricity. The current system is different than other utilities. The scheme that is commonly used in the US is similar to paying for generation and leasing the distribution system. This doesn't make sense since the grid is not used up. It needs to be maintained to all customers almost equally wether one uses 100kWh or 10MWh per year. My post was directed to people that did understand the costs. If the current scheme is kept, then I propose to pay solar generators at retail for their generation and pass the transmission charges to users. The POCO still makes a profit on the transmission and doesn't pass excessive cost to users. Why retail? Electrical generation is an allowed monopoly and solar generators should be allowed in on the government permitted profit from generation. Yes, I would get less reimbursement for what I generate. I can't figure out why the POCO pays me for ditribution even though they distribute it. I assume it is a way of subsidizing solar. I am taking advantage of it while I can. I sleep well at night knowing that the utilities commission is forcing others to pay for my clean energy and subsidize the poor.

If you read my original post the way I meant it. The POCO should charge everyone for the infrastructure required to ditribute power to and from their house at a fixed cost. Similar to how some water companies do. They charge a high fixed cost to have their water and sewer connected and then charge for how much you use. Good luck convincing everyone that they should pay about half of their pre PV fall/spring bill as a fixed cost. And then the utility can charge and pay retail to customers for generation for the aforementioned reasons. This would not make PV owners very happy.

That is not how things work. You cannot compare a government owned and operated water utility to a privately owned electric utility. That is ridiculous analogy. A City utility entitles you to certain rights. You are not entitled to anything made by a private company.

If you want to be a Co-generator you buy the property and build the generation al at your own expense. That includes building the Transport to the electric utility interconnect sub station. Once you have done that, you sell electricity at Market prices. The Utility will send out a Request for Quote to its Co generators for X amount of Mwh over a specified time period. You as a Co-Gen reply with a bid. If your bid is lower than your competitor, you win the bid and start selling power. If not you sit there and do nothing.

So what you want is for your neighbors to pay for your system installation cost, the utility to build and maintain your Transport and Delivery cost, and pay you what they charge you for the end product. Are you nuts? You are no different than any Co-Gen, except you want a free ride and force utilities to do it. Well guess what, the public is telling you to go pound rocks. You knew it was a risk from the start, you paid little money, and you lost the bet. Move on.

[FFE]

That is not how things work. You cannot compare a government owned and operated water utility to a privately owned electric utility. That is ridiculous analogy. A City utility entitles you to certain rights. You are not entitled to anything made by a private company.

If you want to be a Co-generator you buy the property and build the generation al at your own expense. That includes building the Transport to the electric utility interconnect sub station. Once you have done that, you sell electricity at Market prices. The Utility will send out a Request for Quote to its Co generators for X amount of Mwh over a specified time period. You as a Co-Gen reply with a bid. If your bid is lower than your competitor, you win the bid and start selling power. If not you sit there and do nothing.

So what you want is for your neighbors to pay for your system installation cost, the utility to build and maintain your Transport and Delivery cost, and pay you what they charge you for the end product. Are you nuts? You are no different than any Co-Gen, except you want a free ride and force utilities to do it. Well guess what, the public is telling you to go pound rocks. You knew it was a risk from the start, you paid little money, and you lost the bet. Move on.

Actually, I was comparing a privately held company when I wrote the post. Specifically Johnson Utilities in San Tan Valley, AZ.

The way I see it I own the property and already had the transportation in place. I am providing 240v generation and do not believe the power generated needs a dedicated connection to a substation at the power levels I generate.

As to your last paragraph, my neighbors are paying paying the POCO for the exact same list. Not much different that what I am asking for. I expect my neighbors to pay the POCO for transporting the energy (so they get their profit) and pay me for my generation at the same rate they pay the utility. My plan: utilities pay me 24.6 cents on peak and 14 cents off peak, then charge my neighbors 35 cents on peak and 25 cents off peak using their current rates. It appears you believe the POCO should pay pay me wholesale for the generation, charge me for transporting it and then charge my neighbors retail for generation and retail for transportation. If that is the case at current rates, the utility would pay me about 5 cents for peak to 1 cent off peak then charge my neighbors 35 cents peak and 24 cents off peak. Assuming I pay retail to transport to the substation and approximating wholesale.

[Yaryman]

Why should the poor and working class pay for your luxury? ( Solar Power ) You can afford it without their help. There is no energy shortage.

You are not entitled to anything. You paid your money and gambled. You lost, suck it up.

. .

Having had some time to think about this subsidy question, I wonder who is subsidizing whom.
My question refers to the POCO known as PG&E in Northern California. It's large, 16 million customers with more than 5 million electricity accounts.

Sunking is of the opinion that the poor and working class are subsidizing those rich folks with solar power.

FACTS:
1. PG&E has fixed costs which are divided UNEQUALLY among its customers.
2. PG&E customers without AC are subsidized by those PG&E customers with AC.
( people living near the coast are much less likely to have A/C or use it, those avoiding the higher rate tiers )
3. PG&E customers living in small apartments are subsidized by those those living in large homes.
( PG&E customers using less electricity are having their "fair" share of fixed costs paid by larger electricity users )

All those facts are true as with the PG&E rate structure, the more electricity you use, the higher rate you pay.
So it turns out, I HAVE BEEN subsidizing those with lower electricity bills all these years.

Now I get solar, and some think it's not fair that I pay less of the PG&E's fixed costs by using less electricity. What? Huh?
I still am required to pay some fixed costs due to the daily minimum PG&E charges.

As Sunking mentioned, California tries to be a green energy user. There is a reason for that, and it's not that we in California are a bunch of liberal know nothing nitwits trying to save a few trees. California had a real pollution problem till we cleaned up the air by imposing tough standards.Long story short, there are a whole bunch of us crammed into a small area.

So instead of thanking me for providing green energy and clean air, you want me to pay more for doing my part to save the Earth.

Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

[SunEagle]

Having had some time to think about this subsidy question, I wonder who is subsidizing whom.
My question refers to the POCO known as PG&E in Northern California. It's large, 16 million customers with more than 5 million electricity accounts.

Sunking is of the opinion that the poor and working class are subsidizing those rich folks with solar power.

FACTS:
1. PG&E has fixed costs which are divided UNEQUALLY among its customers.
2. PG&E customers without AC are subsidized by those PG&E customers with AC.
( people living near the coast are much less likely to have A/C or use it, those avoiding the higher rate tiers )
3. PG&E customers living in small apartments are subsidized by those those living in large homes.
( PG&E customers using less electricity are having their "fair" share of fixed costs paid by larger electricity users )

All those facts are true as with the PG&E rate structure, the more electricity you use, the higher rate you pay.
So it turns out, I HAVE BEEN subsidizing those with lower electricity bills all these years.

Now I get solar, and some think it's not fair that I pay less of the PG&E's fixed costs by using less electricity. What? Huh?
I still am required to pay some fixed costs due to the daily minimum PG&E charges.

As Sunking mentioned, California tries to be a green energy user. There is a reason for that, and it's not that we in California are a bunch of liberal know nothing nitwits trying to save a few trees. California had a real pollution problem till we cleaned up the air by imposing tough standards.Long story short, there are a whole bunch of us crammed into a small area.

So instead of thanking me for providing green energy and clean air, you want me to pay more for doing my part to save the Earth.

Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

Unfortunately the people of CA don't really provide clean air and maybe some expect too much praise for their small pv systems. IMO they should stop complaining about what their POCO charges for electricity and do something else.

So if you want me to thank you for your part, then use less fossil fuel (that includes driving, flying, purchasing store products or anything that burns fuel to be manufactured) and turn off your electric devices at night when RE can't provide you energy. Then I will believe you truly want to save energy and clean up the air.

[jflorey2]

You don't read before responding, do you. Judging from your number of posts, it's clear you just post. Shows ignorance.

He's definitely not ignorant; he gives quite good advice from a technical perspective, and can pick out details of an installation from a very general post (requires good reading skills.) Just ignore all the right wing political blather. (Good rule in general here.)

[Yaryman]

Unfortunately the people of CA don't really provide clean air and maybe some expect too much praise for their small pv systems.
IMO they should stop complaining about what their POCO charges for electricity and do something else.

I honestly don't expect anybody to knock on my door and thank me for saving the planet.

That said, I don't like being told ( not by you ) the poor and downtrodden are subsidizing my dalliance with solar power
when in fact it's a plus for a state that continues to purchase more and more energy from other sources.

[SunEagle]

I honestly don't expect anybody to knock on my door and thank me for saving the planet.

That said, I don't like being told ( not by you ) the poor and downtrodden are subsidizing my dalliance with solar power
when in fact it's a plus for a state that continues to purchase more and more energy from other sources.

I understand that if CA could generate more of their own electricity then maybe the costs may come down. But as long as CA has to purchase power from out of state you are open to being held hostage and paying higher fees.

It is sad that CA got themselves into this situation. If only they had developed more low cost in house generation as well as find ways to reduce consumption. That is a win win in my book.

[Sunking]

I honestly don't expect anybody to knock on my door and thank me for saving the planet.

That said, I don't like being told ( not by you ) the poor and downtrodden are subsidizing my dalliance with solar power
when in fact it's a plus for a state that continues to purchase more and more energy from other sources.

CA is ggoing backwards every year. Solar has done NOTHING for the state or enviroment except make a lot of installers very RICH. You import more than 1/3 of your power. If CA keeps going the way it is going, you will go DARK. That is just a FACT.

[solar pete]

I will go out on a limb here but I am willing to bet that CA does not go "Dark" in the foreseeable future

[SunEagle]

I will go out on a limb here but I am willing to bet that CA does not go "Dark" in the foreseeable future

What if they get the "big one"?