Indiana Senate Bill 309

[SunEagle]

I don't see, nor am I looking for or expecting anything other than twisted realities and obfuscation from anyone. It's just business. On the other hand, the current state of affairs is such that going off grid is mostly a cut off your nose to spite your face pyric victory kind of non solution.

So, one way to really help yourself and really "get even" with the POCO (but that being a poor reason for doing anything in my book) while minimizing contact with liars, is to reduce the use of the commodity. as for the medical system, I've got a somewhat similar tactic. I try to sat as healthy as possible in the same sense I try to use as little power as possible. Reality is, some interaction w/the systems designed to perpetuate themselves at the expense of their users is, in a practical and realistic sense, unavoidable, but I'd like to think I'll go down swingin'.

With respect to any hope of truth, the recent concept of "alternate facts" (which to me is little more than another name and buzz phrase for B.S.) comes to mind.

BTW, I'm about as simple as they come. It's just that things are more complicated than they need be because of for human shortcomings like greed. But, curse the wind. The situation is what it is. I work it like I find it or work around it.

+1.

[J.P.M.]

I agree with you. The POCO was not telling you the truth about the pass through costs and was just blowing smoke to confuse the simple minded person which you are not.

I have no solution to forcing the POCO to be honest with it's pricing or explanation of their costs. So I can see the reasoning of some people wanting no part of being a customer of that POCO because they are at a minimum not trustworthy and at worse thieves.

I have a similar complaint about my medical insurance and pharmacy pricing but even after shopping around I found little to no options that make any financial sense to me for the high prices I am being charged. "It is what it is", so I find other ways to save money where I have more control and chalk up the high cost of XXX because I have little choice where I can get their product/service.

I don't see, nor am I looking for or expecting anything other than twisted realities and obfuscation from anyone. It's just business. On the other hand, the current state of affairs is such that going off grid is mostly a cut off your nose to spite your face pyric victory kind of non solution.

So, one way to really help yourself and really "get even" with the POCO (but that being a poor reason for doing anything in my book) while minimizing contact with liars, is to reduce the use of the commodity. As for the medical system, I've got a somewhat similar tactic. I try to stay as healthy as possible in the same sense I try to use as little power as possible. Reality is, some interaction w/the systems designed to perpetuate themselves at the expense of their users is, in a practical and realistic sense, unavoidable, but I'd like to think I'll go down swingin'.

With respect to any hope of truth, the recent concept of "alternate facts" (which to me is little more than another name and buzz phrase for B.S.) comes to mind.

BTW, I'm about as simple as they come. It's just that things are more complicated than they need be because of human shortcomings like greed. But, curse the wind. The situation is what it is. I work it like I find it or work around it.

[SunEagle]

I appreciate and understand why and how commodity pricing for most things, especially nat. gas and particularly power can be highly variable, especially in CA and the spot market gyrations.

I my rant about what seems to me to be inconsistent pricing was more focused on what you point out as some POCO's dishonesty and I prefer to call their lack of believable explanations for what I see as inconsistencies in how they tell me what they pay for power and how they pass that cost along. I see at least two different prices for the same thing, and I'm told that both are pass through costs with nothing added by the POCO. I'm not beefing about what the cost is at this point, just that the story seems inconsistent.

As for POCOs being generators, I agree it's probably mostly but not entirely better for energy distributors - POCPs - to not be generators.

I agree with you. The POCO was not telling you the truth about the pass through costs and was just blowing smoke to confuse the simple minded person which you are not.

I have no solution to forcing the POCO to be honest with it's pricing or explanation of their costs. So I can see the reasoning of some people wanting no part of being a customer of that POCO because they are at a minimum not trustworthy and at worse thieves.

I have a similar complaint about my medical insurance and pharmacy pricing but even after shopping around I found little to no options that make any financial sense to me for the high prices I am being charged. "It is what it is", so I find other ways to save money where I have more control and chalk up the high cost of XXX because I have little choice where I can get their product/service.

[J.P.M.]

Unfortunately there are some POCO's that will lie and cheat their customers. While that happens I just wanted to explain my experience with price changes for both kWh and natural gas. Neither have a fixed price due to the ability of any POCO to "Wheel" either of those commodities through someone else's transmission lines or pipeline.

IMO it was a lot simpler (but probably more expensive) when a POCO could only supply the power it generated from it's own plants.

I appreciate and understand why and how commodity pricing for most things, especially nat. gas and particularly power can be highly variable, especially in CA and the spot market gyrations.

I my rant about what seems to me to be inconsistent pricing was more focused on what you point out as some POCO's dishonesty and I prefer to call their lack of believable explanations for what I see as inconsistencies in how they tell me what they pay for power and how they pass that cost along. I see at least two different prices for the same thing, and I'm told that both are pass through costs with nothing added by the POCO. I'm not beefing about what the cost is at this point, just that the story seems inconsistent.

As for POCOs being generators, I agree it's probably mostly but not entirely better for energy distributors - POCPs - to not be generators.

[SunEagle]

That is what the Gas Co at my last house said, they were just a pipeline passing on their cost. But an
examination of my charges showed that while I was using less and less gas, my bills continued to rise.
When I read that natural gas prices had bottomed out, I realized they were lying. Later there were suits.
Bruce Roe[/SIZE]

Unfortunately there are some POCO's that will lie and cheat their customers. While that happens I just wanted to explain my experience with price changes for both kWh and natural gas. Neither have a fixed price due to the ability of any POCO to "Wheel" either of those commodities through someone else's transmission lines or pipeline.

IMO it was a lot simpler (but probably more expensive) when a POCO could only supply the power it generated from it's own plants.

[bcroe]

You will find the same type of cost changes in the natural gas business. Depending on who wants to sell their "well head" gas and at what price will allow you to find it cheaper from one source one day and less from another on a different day.

That is what the Gas Co at my last house said, they were just a pipeline passing on their cost. But an
examination of my charges showed that while I was using less and less gas, my bills continued to rise.
When I read that natural gas prices had bottomed out, I realized they were lying. Later there were suits.
Bruce Roe

[SunEagle]

One of the mandates of AB 327 (the CA rate reform bill that became law 01/01/2014) was to make energy charges, and I guess the monthly bills, more understandable. FWIW, seems to me the electric bills have not become easier to decipher. For many years they have been full of information, most (but by no means all) of which can be sorted out, but is a PITA to dig out. But, in some attempted fairness to the my POCO anyway, some form of bill delineation is available to me. How much of it is believable is a separate matter. See below.

On what to reimburse, I've often thought one fair way, among perhaps many ways to handle residential generators would be to pay users w/PV the same rate for what's often called the "electric energy charge", that is, what the POCO charges the customer for the actual power, separate from the transmission, distribution and other expenses incurred that are necessary to maintain the grid and get the commodity to the user's residence.

As an oversimplified example: Of the tiered rates charged to me in summer, $0.13709/kWh of the tier one rate of $0.2045/kWk is the "EECC" (electric energy commodity cost). The rest is the charge for getting it to my house. Tier 2 EECC charge is the same - $0.13709/kWh - but the tier 2 total per kWh rate is $0.42178/kWh. Winter rates are lower, with the EECC rate dropping to $0.06994/kWh for both tiers. Taking the POCO at their word, I'd propose those rates might a more fair type of reimbursement for what PV users don't use from the grid or put back onto the grid.

For purposes of this post, I'm not taking issue with particular charges, or a rate/billing system that I think sucks and is unnecessarily complicated and mostly B.S. anyway. What I am suggesting is that having PV owners pay the same as other customers for having access to the grid (and also the same rate for what what non PV owners pay when they (PV owners) take from the grid). PV owners would then get credit for sending stuff to the grid at what looks like an avoided rate ( the EECC rates) for all generation sent to the grid in some logical or at least understandable way. Such a scenario might also quiet some of the voices that clamor (with perhaps some justification - but not much IMO) that the rich PV owners are freeloading off the other ratepayers.

FWIW, part of my mistrust, of my POCO anyway, is the that they charge ~ $0.07 or $0.14/kWh for the electricity itself and claim (or at least strongly imply to my reading) that that charge is a simple pass through - as in, "The Electric Energy Commodity Cost (EECC) is passed through to customers who purchase their electricity from SDG & E". So, looks to me they are saying that's what they pay to those who supply power to SDG & E, and that (pass through cost) is what SDG & E charges it's customer for the commodity with no mark up. But maybe I'm stupid.

Then, they turn around and currently reimburse something like $0.03/kWh for excess generation and claim that's what they pay for power to outside suppliers, w/ SDG & E buying all its power from outside suppliers, as in " This is a wholesale price that the utility pays other generators".

W.T.F. ?

I understand how the game is run, and no one ever said anything about fair, but that seems an insult to my intelligence and also doesn't do much to build my trust in what they claim for other stuff. The fact that they also seem to bend over backwards to make things near indecipherable only adds to insult and mistrust.

I can tell you that the last industrial facility I worked at had a 6MW natural gas fired turbine. We would sell our excess kWh to our POCO at different rates depending on the time of day or time of the year. This was based on the different costs that the POCO would pay to purchase power from other sources since they did not generate everything they sold. Our sell price would also be determined on how much it cost us to purchase the gas to run the turbine and how efficient the turbine was working. If it cost more to generate a kWh then what we could sell it for we would find a way to either generate less or use it somewhere in the facility.

The whole process is similar to the "commodity market" where things can quickly change in price multiple times throughout the day. This is something most people don't know about but think that the cost for a kWh is the same all day and night every day of the year. It isn't because that kWh comes from many sources and most are not even being generated by the POCO that sells them to you as "passed through" costs. So the cost to purchase and sell can change a lot yet the Tier rate the POCO is locked into is fixed amount. That is the major reason for higher Tiers at different times of the day.

You will find the same type of cost changes in the natural gas business. Depending on who wants to sell their "well head" gas and at what price will allow you to find it cheaper from one source one day and less from another on a different day.

The whole process is very dynamic and at a minimum very confusing to the customers

[Mike90250]

It was simpler when the power company owned the poles and wires. Now, someone else manages that, and it only makes the bills more obtuse

[J.P.M.]

One of the mandates of AB 327 (the CA rate reform bill that became law 01/01/2014) was to make energy charges, and I guess the monthly bills, more understandable. FWIW, seems to me the electric bills have not become easier to decipher. For many years they have been full of information, most (but by no means all) of which can be sorted out, but is a PITA to dig out. But, in some attempted fairness to the my POCO anyway, some form of bill delineation is available to me. How much of it is believable is a separate matter. See below.

On what to reimburse, I've often thought one fair way, among perhaps many ways to handle residential generators would be to pay users w/PV the same rate for what's often called the "electric energy charge", that is, what the POCO charges the customer for the actual power, separate from the transmission, distribution and other expenses incurred that are necessary to maintain the grid and get the commodity to the user's residence.

As an oversimplified example: Of the tiered rates charged to me in summer, $0.13709/kWh of the tier one rate of $0.2045/kWk is the "EECC" (electric energy commodity cost). The rest is the charge for getting it to my house. Tier 2 EECC charge is the same - $0.13709/kWh - but the tier 2 total per kWh rate is $0.42178/kWh. Winter rates are lower, with the EECC rate dropping to $0.06994/kWh for both tiers. Taking the POCO at their word, I'd propose those rates might a more fair type of reimbursement for what PV users don't use from the grid or put back onto the grid.

For purposes of this post, I'm not taking issue with particular charges, or a rate/billing system that I think sucks and is unnecessarily complicated and mostly B.S. anyway. What I am suggesting is that having PV owners pay the same as other customers for having access to the grid (and also the same rate for what what non PV owners pay when they (PV owners) take from the grid). PV owners would then get credit for sending stuff to the grid at what looks like an avoided rate ( the EECC rates) for all generation sent to the grid in some logical or at least understandable way. Such a scenario might also quiet some of the voices that clamor (with perhaps some justification - but not much IMO) that the rich PV owners are freeloading off the other ratepayers.

FWIW, part of my mistrust, of my POCO anyway, is the that they charge ~ $0.07 or $0.14/kWh for the electricity itself and claim (or at least strongly imply to my reading) that that charge is a simple pass through - as in, "The Electric Energy Commodity Cost (EECC) is passed through to customers who purchase their electricity from SDG & E". So, looks to me they are saying that's what they pay to those who supply power to SDG & E, and that (pass through cost) is what SDG & E charges it's customer for the commodity with no mark up. But maybe I'm stupid.

Then, they turn around and currently reimburse something like $0.03/kWh for excess generation and claim that's what they pay for power to outside suppliers, w/ SDG & E buying all its power from outside suppliers, as in " This is a wholesale price that the utility pays other generators".

W.T.F. ?

I understand how the game is run, and no one ever said anything about fair, but that seems an insult to my intelligence and also doesn't do much to build my trust in what they claim for other stuff. The fact that they also seem to bend over backwards to make things near indecipherable only adds to insult and mistrust.

[SunEagle]

I totally agree.....you have restated the position I have taken for years only you have articulated much better than I.

In the absence of a major technological breakthrough in either energy storage or energy transmission.......we will have to find common ground. I believe this common ground is a "net billing" system where a "fair" wholesale price is paid for excess distributed generation. And it must be market based....not determined by a government bureaucrat working in a vacuum.

I agree. Maybe that day will come.

[DanS26]

I agree that the proposal is not fair and in some way may be a form of stealing. But what I am saying is that sometimes the legal system and politics can introduce something that is not in the best interest of the general public and the only way we can fix that is to go to the voting booth or run for office.

On the other side of the conversation, there has been some legislation that has put the POCO's into a corner with a mandatory requirement to produce a % of their power from RE even if that rule huts the POCO. On top of that % RE they have been told to purchase power from small co-generators at much more than what it costs them to purchase power from large co-generators. Again something that hurts a business financially.

Somewhere in between the two sides a new way to figure out how much a kWh is worth in either direction along with how much it costs to maintain the delivery system. I don't know what the answer is, but IMO while it would hurt me to lose full price Net-metering (where the POCO pays the same rate I pay per kWh) the existing process is actually steeling from the POCO.

As I see it, the problem stems from lump sum billing for electricity. The billing should have had more detail as to how much is the production cost and how much is the delivery cost (along with fuel, environment, taxes, fees, etc). Then if the Net meter was based on what it costs to generate a kWh the pay process in both directions would be equal and fair even if neither side likes the outcome.

I totally agree.....you have restated the position I have taken for years only you have articulated much better than I.

In the absence of a major technological breakthrough in either energy storage or energy transmission.......we will have to find common ground. I believe this common ground is a "net billing" system where a "fair" wholesale price is paid for excess distributed generation. And it must be market based....not determined by a government bureaucrat working in a vacuum.

[SunEagle]

But that is not what this proposal says........it says that energy produced and consumed on private property.....which never touches the public utility grid.....belongs to the public utility. That is just wrong.

You have a generator at your house....its like the utility says "how much power did you generate while our grid was down?.....now you owe us.

I agree that the proposal is not fair and in some way may be a form of stealing. But what I am saying is that sometimes the legal system and politics can introduce something that is not in the best interest of the general public and the only way we can fix that is to go to the voting booth or run for office.

On the other side of the conversation, there has been some legislation that has put the POCO's into a corner with a mandatory requirement to produce a % of their power from RE even if that rule huts the POCO. On top of that % RE they have been told to purchase power from small co-generators at much more than what it costs them to purchase power from large co-generators. Again something that hurts a business financially.

Somewhere in between the two sides a new way to figure out how much a kWh is worth in either direction along with how much it costs to maintain the delivery system. I don't know what the answer is, but IMO while it would hurt me to lose full price Net-metering (where the POCO pays the same rate I pay per kWh) the existing process is actually steeling from the POCO.

As I see it, the problem stems from lump sum billing for electricity. The billing should have had more detail as to how much is the production cost and how much is the delivery cost (along with fuel, environment, taxes, fees, etc). Then if the Net meter was based on what it costs to generate a kWh the pay process in both directions would be equal and fair even if neither side likes the outcome.

[DanS26]

It wouldn't be stealing if a law is put into affect that you can't be a "co-generator" unless you meet certain criteria including a very large insurance policy to protect you from any liability.

But that is not what this proposal says........it says that energy produced and consumed on private property.....which never touches the public utility grid.....belongs to the public utility. That is just wrong.

You have a generator at your house....its like the utility says "how much power did you generate while our grid was down?.....now you owe us.

[SunEagle]

Bruce, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that it is unconstitutional to allow a public utility to confiscate property...ie take power produced and used on private property. That is the point where the utilities and their lobbyist overstepped their bounds to protect their turf from competition.

This is not "net metering", it is not "net billing", it is something beyond that.......theft of property comes to mind.

What could be going on here is that the utilities knowing that this protection is too unreasonable will "compromise" for "net billing". Thus getting rid of the "net metering" provisions in Indiana utility law for public utilities. And if nobody protests too much they might get everything they want.........worth a try.

It wouldn't be stealing if a law is put into affect that you can't be a "co-generator" unless you meet certain criteria including a very large insurance policy to protect you from any liability.

Something similar was pushed on a facility in Erie PA which was part of a large company I use to work for. The local utility put so many restrictions and required safety apparatus before we could send them any unused natural gas from our new well. It turned out to be so expensive we just decided to install equipment (boilers and heaters) that would use 100% of any gas we harvested so we did not have to abide by the POCO's unrealistic and very expensive rules to connect to their gas distribution system.

[DanS26]

If they try to cancel all the 20 year grid tie contracts, someone will challenge them in court. Bruce Roe

Bruce, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that it is unconstitutional to allow a public utility to confiscate property...ie take power produced and used on private property. That is the point where the utilities and their lobbyist overstepped their bounds to protect their turf from competition.

This is not "net metering", it is not "net billing", it is something beyond that.......theft of property comes to mind.

What could be going on here is that the utilities knowing that this protection is too unreasonable will "compromise" for "net billing". Thus getting rid of the "net metering" provisions in Indiana utility law for public utilities. And if nobody protests too much they might get everything they want.........worth a try.