WE Energies to Squash Distributed Renewables with their latest rate case.

[ChrisOlson]

No. Sorry for the confusion. I'm going to price an Outback system to determine the actual cost

kwilcox, you must realize that you are in the business of selling a product when you grid-tie an energy system like solar. We Energies is in the business of making money for their investors. Even though they are a regulated monopoly, investing in the electrical utility business is a guaranteed return and a lucrative investment opportunity. Forcing them to pay more for the product you sell when they can buy it cheaper someplace else is politics interfering with the free market in the name of "green" energy. And we know that never works.

You now have an idea of the REAL cost of generating your own electricity with solar. And it's not pretty.

This whole grid-tie, net-metering thing is a joke. It was thought up by politicians pushing "green" as a way to get elected because "green" sounds good to the general population. It was never invented, or even needed, by the utility companies. So you are going to be left holding the bag on it. You may not like it, but any system designed by politicians has never worked yet. So that's the way it is. It's just unfortunate that you bought into it.

Now you have a better idea of what us off-gridders up here in the north where utility lines don't even go pay for electricity. We never did it to "go green" or save money because most of us could give a hoot less about "green", and are pretty well off in the first place. We did it so we can have the same things you got, that you get a lot cheaper, but that we can control and you can't. If you want to go off-grid with your system, that's your business. But I can tell you from experience that whatever you produce with your solar setup is going to cost you at least 2x what you can buy it for from the utility. And that's why the utility wants nothing to do with it.

[Ian S]

Ian S, I'm liking the point you made in AZ more and more because it really does apply in WI too.

I would add that IMHO, if you can get the PUC and utility to accept the concept of grandfathering this time, then it will make it harder to say no grandfathering next time. I'm under no illusion that the battle is over here in Arizona: the November elections will likely see two new members of the Corporation Commission who are in the utility's back pocket and new rate hearings are on the horizon. But at least we have a precedent for grandfathering that should benefit existing solar customers. I suspect that the utility and their minions on the Corp Commission will figure it's easier to let the small cadre of existing solar customers be and work on killing solar for new customers. Oh, except for those the utility itself wants for its own residential rooftop solar program.

[kwilcox]

No. Sorry for the confusion. I'm going to price an Outback system to determine the actual cost of decommissioning my grid tied array and using it instead to power my server farm which draws 11kWh/day. At 4mWh/year its almost a perfect match for my array which can produce 5mWh/year. My solar contractor will do the quote for no charge because the WE Energies rate case, if enacted, will also kill his current solar business. Werner Electric here in WI is an Outback dealer, so we have easy access to product.

With empirical data in hand I'll decide whether discussing hybrid grid defection during the October PSC meeting makes sense or not.

[russ]

I'm going to price out an outback system that can handle 11kWh/day,

You are going to argue that "if" you owned a system it should be grandfathered?

[kwilcox]

Ian S, I'm liking the point you made in AZ more and more because it really does apply in WI too. I'm going to price out an outback system that can handle 11kWh/day, but I suspect that until cheap storage is developed, it'll be a bit more than the $4,400 I have to work with over my array's twenty year lifespan. My arguing the grandfather clause from a current DER owner perspective while leaving the Renew WI lawyers to argue the greater good makes better sense. WE Energies really should grandfather in my CGS8 tariff over 20 years regardless of ownership. If WI didn't want me to build the array, the PSC could have declined to have WE Energies participate in the focus on Energy grant program.

[Ian S]

Really? You were using rules forced on the utilities by politics - sue the politicians.

That's why I said to present it as bait and switch to the PUC. It worked in Arizona with the Corp. Commission who even grandfathered us from having to pay the tiny $5/month fee they eventually agreed upon. We even got them to modify the grandfathering so that subsequent buyers of our homes would also be grandfathered for a period totalling 20 years from installation. I would suggest the O.P. use the Arizona experience as support for his case. It IS bait and switch when the Corp. Commission and the utility itself extoll the virtues of rooftop solar then turn around and demonize those who actually take them up on the deal. Even the $5 fee has had an effect: solar installs in AZ are down significantly since the fee was instituted.

[russ]

We really did play by their rules only to get threatened by a switch without so much as a grandfather clause...

Really? You were using rules forced on the utilities by politics - sue the politicians. No one switched anything on anyone in most cases.

[kwilcox]

Well, as you could see, they did downgrade the entire US electric utility sector in March due to that potential. Isn't market manipulation a crime? Maybe they know something about the Tesla battery factory that we don't? Remember, the energy sector looks 30-50 years out from an investment perspective.

To tell the truth, I'm not really here to speculate; just cite the data if I decide to discuss hybrid grid defection. I'm liking the AZ "bait & switch " tactic too now. We really did play by their rules only to get threatened by a switch without so much as a grandfather clause...

[SunEagle]

You didn't read the Morgan Stanley document did you Sunking? I gave you the docket link, how to find it and everything. You should check cited empirical data before you post. Please do check the Barclays downgrade document too. Grid defection is a real issue.

To help you out, I've attached them to this post.

Seems pretty far fetched to me that Barclays would think a lot of people would go off grid because there "may" be a cheap energy storage system in the next ten years even though there is no low cost battery system that is close to being available anytime in the near future. It is possible they are trying to manipulate the market using this tactic.

[kwilcox]

I think you should also make the point that you've been a victim of bait and switch, where you've invested for a decades-long period and now the rules are being drastically changed. That argument had significant clout in the solar fees debate here in Arizona to the extent that even the utility agreed from the outset with grandfathering existing solar owners. And be sure to call it "bait and switch" because choice of words matter in effective communications - just ask Frank Luntz - neither the utility nor the PUC wants folks to think they support such unfair and unpopular tactics. I realize your getting grandfathered doesn't do anything for new solar owners but looking out for number one seems to be the accepted approach to everything these days. Also, when you're talking grandfathering, make sure that it gets transferred to a new owner at least for some period of time say 20 years in total.

Good point. Interesting to hear that was effective in AZ.

[kwilcox]

Yes, they do. You didn't even read the Morgan Stanley document did you Sunking? I gave you the docket link, how to find it and everything. You should check cited empirical data before you post. Please do check the Barclays downgrade document too. Grid defection is a real concern when you think 30-50 years out from an infrastructure perspective like any major power company has to do.

To help you out, I've attached them to this post. Now go read them and then please change the tune of your diatribe to fit the points being made.

[Sunking]

Thanks for the insult.

No insult just stating facts.

Unfortunately, the investment firm of Morgan Stanley disagrees with your assessment.

No they don't. They are selling not buying solar stock and buying utility stock. It is called Pump and Dump. They bought up a lot of Solar PV manufactures stock in 2007 to 2009 time frame when solar stocks went bust. Now that most are out of business, stock prices have risen and now they are cashing out and selling off. That is what brokers do, buy low and sell high. They are plucking pigeons. All you gotta do is look at their holdings to see it. Secondly look at utility stocks, they are a rising and paying good dividends. If you want to know what to buy and sell, listen to what Brokers say and do the exact opposite and do what they are doing. Right now they are dumping solar and buying utilities.

You knew it was a risk when you bought in and this could happen. You got caught holding the bag.

[Ian S]

All good points. As you hypothesized, we are 2% of the energy mix currently. I'll research the renewable requirement and emphasize this point more. I've been treating it as an intangible benefit against the contention that we don't "pay our fair share of the grid" but it really isn't.

I think you should also make the point that you've been a victim of bait and switch, where you've invested for a decades-long period and now the rules are being drastically changed. That argument had significant clout in the solar fees debate here in Arizona to the extent that even the utility agreed from the outset with grandfathering existing solar owners. And be sure to call it "bait and switch" because choice of words matter in effective communications - just ask Frank Luntz - neither the utility nor the PUC wants folks to think they support such unfair and unpopular tactics. I realize your getting grandfathered doesn't do anything for new solar owners but looking out for number one seems to be the accepted approach to everything these days. Also, when you're talking grandfathering, make sure that it gets transferred to a new owner at least for some period of time say 20 years in total.

[kwilcox]

I think it'd be more convincing to the commision to point out
* how much solar is installed (Find out - I'm sure it's very very little)
* how much additional the power company is required to have for renewables
* that this will discourage investment by homeowners that would enable the power company to reach that goal
* that other power companies have significantly more PV and aren't requiring these fees
* that this is obviously nothing more than a money grab by the utility where they are trying to demonize the few people who have installed solar and have been playing by the rules these utilities helped setup

All good points. As you hypothesized, we are 2% of the energy mix currently. I'll research the renewable requirement and emphasize this point more. I've been treating it as an intangible benefit against the contention that we don't "pay our fair share of the grid" but it really isn't.

[kwilcox]

Will not scare the POCO or your utility commissioners, they know better. Try it and you will be laughed at and ignored like all the Tin Foil hat people.

Thanks for the insult. Unfortunately, the investment firm of Morgan Stanley disagrees with your assessment. While you're at it, maybe you might want to research Barclays recent downgrading of the entire US electric utility sector due to this exact same threat. Search the document list for Rabago-11.

I suppose these firms are also laughable "Tin Foil hat people" in your mind?