Slashdot Mirror
Electric Company Wants Monthly Fee For Solar Users
7-Vodka writes
"Xcel Energy customers who have their own solar panels are worried about a new fee being proposed by the company. A monthly fee to pay for transmission and distribution of energy would be charged to customers who have solar panels, irrespective of their energy use for the month. An Xcel Energy spokesman said the fee is to ensure that regular customers don't subsidize the 'connectivity fees' for the solar panel customers who don't pay when they generate as much as they use. When pressed, the spokesman admitted that nobody actually pays a 'connectivity fee,' yet they wanted to prevent the mooching from occurring in the future (presumably when they hit everyone with such a fee). He also called the absence of a connectivity fee for solar customers a 'double subsidy' because many solar customers receive rebates to install the panels."
Because I'm not really getting what the hell they mean about how solar panel users are mooching by NOT using the grid's energy. Maybe there's something electrical and complicated going on that I, as a mere mortal, don't understand that some kind EE can explain to me.
Right now all I'm hearing is "Damn them, how dare those freeloaders not buy things from us!"
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I am not sure we can/should speculate on this without more details. Of course the energy company wants to ensure its revenues, but this may not be unreasonable. Even if you have solar, you're (probably) still connected to the grid. It's a huge convenience to you to use just a bit of energy when you really need it - but what if you only use $5 worth of electricity at a low cost? The billing probably process probably costs a nice percentage of your total bill! Is it really unreasonable to pay for a connectivity fee? I don't think it is necessarily...
You just spent $80 at the grocery store.
I happen to sell mail-order cheesecakes. Since I didn't get any of your grocery money, I am therefore billing you for $15. Pay up now.
Many electric providers charge a base "connection" fee to all customers to cover the costs of maintaining the connection, billing, etc. Power is charged on top of that. Nothing in the article says it will only be charged to customers with solar panels, so I assume this is just following what other providers already do.
Your natural gas company charges you a monthly connection fee, even in the summer when you don't use it. Just 'cause you're not burning gas, they still have to maintain the pipes.
Your ISP charges you a monthly fee for your Internet link regardless of whether you transmit any packets. They have to maintain their infrastructure on the expectation that you can use it at any time. That costs them money whether you use it or not.
Singling out solar customers and only making them pay a fee seems unfair and if it isn't illegal it should be. But simply saying, hey: there's a minimum monthly fee for an electrical hookup whether you use it or not doesn't strike me as out of line.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
this sounds like a government program
Tax people for using resources to the point they stop using the resources
then
Tax people for not using resources
"Sir, we've learned that the government is PAYING our customers to get these solar panels, and then we have to pay them for the electricity that is generated. Some may actually see a net profit from this. We even get cheaper electricity out of the deal, without having to pay for the equipment."
"What? What?! No - absolutely not - we cannot allow this to continue unchallenged. Why, if everybody did that, then what would we be?"
"Well, sir, we'd be the company that provides power when the sun isn't providing it. We wouldn't have to pay for power we aren't using from them. We could even start reselling expensive solar equipment and batteries."
"Oh, so it wouldn't have to absolutely destroy us... oh, but damn, the shareholders!"
"The shareholders?"
"Yes, they'll go apeshit if they learn we aren't maximizing profits. Damnit, we'll have to do something to convince the shareholders that we're not letting an opportunity for shortterm profit fall away. I know - start charging a ridiculous fee for connecting, then using these solar systems, then they'll be another companies problem."
"Customers willing to provide cheap electricity are a problem?"
"No, shareholder expectations about making money from them are a problem. Losing customers for 'overzealous' charges we can explain, but losing profit margins from existing customers we get a shitstorm for. Commence the charges!"
---
Ryan Fenton
I'm going to start charging plants for using solar energy as well.
What about the monopoly Xcel has to distribute electricity. That's one hell of a subsidy. Oh, what about the free right of ways across the solar panel owner's property. Maybe the home owners should be permitted to charge for allowing a utility pole on their lawn.
What owners of solar panels should do is to join hands and bite back the company by filing a suit for "unauthorized" use of power generated by them.
In short, argue in court that the large corporate is stealing their power using its "tubes" that connect the home to the company.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
For all the oxygen I've processed into carbon dioxide?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You pay something for being connected. They rolled the cable to your door, so now you must pay for their efforts.
This is classic tactics also employed by local land line gov. owned Telcos here for using their land line. I do not use land line phone for example at all, but must pay for the wall socket otherwise they will cut the cable leading to my house or something. Nobody really cared until people started to cancel the wired connection contracts.
Solar panels produce their highest output when demand is highest, namely on sunny summer days when everyone has their air conditioning cranked up. That's VERY expensive power. Keeping the power company from needing to fire up their peak power generators (versus relying on base load) and helping to prevent brownouts is worth serious $$$. Solar panel output is lowest when cheap base load power is plentiful. In management-speak this is called "synergy".
The PHB's at Xcel Energy need a whack with a cluestick. Nickel and diming people who are giving you expensive peak power for the price of base load is petty at best.
If they want to charge a connection fee then so be it. The gas company and other utilities often charge those so there's a track record of that and I doubt you'll be able to fight the lawyers and politicians they own without a lot of trouble.
The money you would spend to fight them could be better used to move yourself off the grid so you don't have to pay them. Anything. Ever.
But that's a lifestyle change too so I doubt enough people in the US are going to be motivated enough to do that.
Note - I live in the US and am reducing my usage until I can find a way to get off the grid. You can do it even in a suburban home if you plan well enough.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
It's called a line connection fee. EVERYONE already pays this. There is no reason that solar CONTRIBUTORS should have to be charged to help the power companies, if anything excel should have to pay them. Think about it, power, they dont have to maintain, service, or otherwise pay to implement, comes into their grid magically.
These guys just want to remain a near monopoly on power generation, so they want to create barriers of entry. People who propose stuff like this should be flogged, or worse.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
The major flaw in this reasoning is that it is absolutely illegal (though IMNAL so I cant quote specific laws) for a company to charge a consumer for purchasing a product from another company or creating a product themselves. The power company is a utility and has no right whatsoever to inspect the property of customers and charge fees accordingly.
This kind of announcement can only hurt a regular company. I wonder why a utility thinks they are above it?
Im 100% sure that the first person that gets charged this fee who has any money or balls will sue the power company for a cool mil.
Rediculous. G.O. would roll in his grave if he found out that 1984 was a mild version of the future.
This one's easy. Split the bill into two portions: transmission, and generation.
Line usage gets billed per day, and generation, per kWh. The line usage fees cover the maintenance of the power lines and are charged whether or not you use (or contribute) any power. The generation fees can range from negative (if you offer a net surplus) to positive (if you use more than you contribute).
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Comment removed based on user account deletion
just get a big power switch to connect from your property to the pole and tell teh power company if they want your extra electricity, then they will have to pay you for it.
Tell me mr energy company shill, where do the people with solar panels get there energy at night?
Thats right the connection to the grid, and they are pay you for the electricity.
How are they even going to know?
Looking at my most recent bill, I think I pay $10.68 even if I use 0 KWH, so I already pay such a "connection fee" with Consumers Energy in Michigan.
System Access Charge - 6.00
Delivery Surcharges - 4.68
Morphing Software
When I was a kid, I collected newspapers to recycle from the neighbors. We brought them to a recycling plant and got paid by weight. This makes sense, I provided labor, raw materials and transported them, they paid for them and turned them into a product.
Nowadays, ironically by law, we collect, clean, sort and partially transport recyclables and have to pay for doing much of the work for them.
This sounds similar.
If *I* invest in the infrastructure, I provide lower cost energy, I maintain the equipment, I bear the cost of insuring it, I'm sure as hell not going to pay YOU to connect to me and use my energy. I have the better mousetrap, you beat a path to my door.
There are some solar users with battery banks large enough to ride all the way through a typical night, but very few solar users with enough battery to last through a week of storms. In this case the power company's infrastructure is acting as insurance, and a fee like this is the price for that insurance.
All loans and mortgages involve some degree of risk. Homeowner loses their job, simply gets tired of making house payments, etc, etc. Risk, however, can be mitigated by pooling -- the principle behind insurance. If we pool a whole bunch of mortgages together, the risk kind of average out, doesn't it? One homeowner may lose their job, but they are not going to all lose their jobs at the same time, right? Yeah, one house gets the roof blown off in a windstorm, but the roof's are not going to blow off all the houses? For a Midwestern tornado, maybe an OK assumption, for Hurricane Katrina, maybe not so much.
That is how we got into the Financial Crisis. It wasn't so much that any one loan was higher risk than any other, but they all got bundled into some kind of traded mortgage bonds where everyone thought, "hey, they can't all default all at once." A recent discussion of this matter mentioned that the key factor was the Pearson r-coefficient of all of those mortgages, and no one doing the bundling or buying the bundled mortgages had a clue.
Wind and solar have a "capacity factor", a kind of risk that they cannot be relied upon to supply electricity when called upon. I used to think that one could "pool the risk", interconnect all of these wind generators and solar panels into the grid and average out the fluctuation. For wind power, I am pretty sure that the capacity factor is highly correlated and hence wind is almost worthlessly unreliable. For solar, I need to see some more data.
The thing is that wind is highly variable, and the variability can be correlated over continental land masses within the reach of any grid, and that wind can just quit for weeks at a time (summer doldrums, if you will). One of the things often suggested is "try it out and get real-world experience." Well, wind is being tried in a major way in Europe, and the capacity factors in practice are proving to be well below original predictions and projections.
Now solar could be another thing, especially in the desert Southwest. Maybe the availability of solar electricity correlates nicely with A/C demand, but I would need to see some data on this, and I imagine the A/C peak lags the sunshine peak on account of thermal lag, and maybe some of this could be compensated with some kind of "smart grid" where people are encourage to run their A/C more at noon instead of waiting till late afternoon and early evening when the heat finally filters through the walls.
The electric power companies never did like solar and wind interconnects, especially from residential users, and maybe they have solid reasons for not liking them, apart from utility executives being Blue Meanies with sharp teeth where most people have their stomachs. Maybe a homeowner with a wind or solar setup is producing much less in the way of usable green power than they think and is increasing the use of expensive natural gas in less-than-efficient peaking plants. We are geeks, here, and we can come up with some reasonable back-of-the-envelope estimates of these effects, instead of lapsing into, "Oh the humanity, those EVIL power companies!!"
horse shit
... if music be fruit of love, play on
And these same companies will refund the money to the government spent to subsidize connecting rural people to the grid?
These fuckers want to have the cake and eat it to. I say we cram it up the ass, tie 'em to chairs and kick 'em down the stairs.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
But I'm going to want them to come out and fix the panels when there's a problem.
Perhaps they could forgo the fee if I generate more than I use annually by a certain amount? After all, I'm building THEM free infrastructure and helping them meet their government required percentage of clean energy.
Sounds fishy ... Presumably the connectivity cost goes both ways? Meaning the solar panel customer has a cost too, that they would like the electrical company to contribute to?
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
"We're not making enough of a profit, therefore we're going to start making up fees so we do. Thanks for the idea, air travel industry!"
I call shenanigans on them for this. By all means, let's start making solar power for individual property owners less attractive! Let's punish them for being green and smart and trying to save themselves some money! Yeah, that'll sure incentivize them to invest $20,000 or more for solar panel installation!
Stupid bastards. Can't wait until someone steps in and tells them "NO!".
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It appears, from another article, that Xcel wants to charge a fee based on the power generation capacity of a customer's solar panels. This seems totally unreasonable, except for one thing -- net metering. Net metering means Xcel essentially buys the customer's power at _retail_. So Xcel has to eat part of the transmission and distribution costs for the customer electricity. Net metering is required by federal law, so they can't just not do it. This seems to be an attempt to find a way around it.
Xcel already charges a flat fee to all customers (in addition to metered charges); this is on top of that.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12914520?source=rss
Power companies have, for decades, been advocating energy conservation, through rebates, in part because it's less expensive for them to do that than to build new power plants.
Now a power company is saying that the rebates THEY offer to prevent construction THEY don't want is only desirable up to the point...where they can't make as much money off of it? Is the objective to reduce power grid usage, or to maximize revenue? Sounds like they are reaching that decision point. Thoughts?
Because I know you have a rep reading this.
I AM GLAD you are doing this. Because now you open up the dialogue in which we discuss what I am going to CHARGE YOU per kilowatt hour that I GENERATE.
capiche?
kulakovich
ps - we're unregulated so I'll just put something out there after you say yes.
My electricity bill has a daily standing charge + a charge for each unit of electricity I use. I thought that was a pretty common arrangement
Some energy companies have lower daily standing charges and higher charges per megajoule. As far as I can tell from the article, the fee described is just an increase to the daily standing charge to cover the cost of engineering the grid to work with more customers who tie their solar panels to the grid.
your excess energy to your neighbors, in fact everyone get panels and screw the mannnnn!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
The millions of dollars spent by the electric company for the infrastructure to deliver the electricity in the first place.
The fact that the idea you propose is like using a nuclear bomb to swat a fly. Most electric companies have literally billions of dollars of investments in the cities they service. They're not going to abandon that over a 3 or 4 cent a kilowatt hour difference that they could only use on a very small minority (those who generate their own power) of customers.
Owners of Alternative fuel vehicles usually have to pay a fee to the state when they register their vehicles. This is because they don't pay gasoline tax when they fill up. At first I was outraged by this because it felt like AF users were being singled out, generally though, these kinds of fees are a balance.
Switching utilities, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in the DC area charges me 11 bucks a month just to stay hooked up to their pipes. Since Washington DC area tap water is so foul, particularly when the Potomac River gets low, I drink only Deer Park Spring Water. (I buy them in the huge 2.5 gallon jugs, which my county recycles.) So basically, all I ever use tap water for is to hand wash dishes / dinnerware, toilet flushing and the shower. Fortunately, I don't have to estimate that part, because those uses are shown in the non-connection-fee part of the bill. I calculated it out (I assure you, correctly, because I was a Math major), and I'm spending more per gallon for tap water (when you include connection fees) than I am for Deer Park.
I really love the comedian Lewis Black, and if I temporarily suspend remembrance of that calculation, I can still laugh at his tirade about how we're all so stupid for buying bottled water, which we could get "for free".
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have to pay their fair share for services and infrastructure they use. The idea of connection fees is completely fair. I'm just saying, keep an eye on what's actually costing you what, and demand a fair accounting. In justifying price increases, don't let them argue that the rising cost of power production justifies an increase in the connection fee too. And don't let them argue that the rising cost of repairing transmission lines justifies increasing the price per kilowatt-hour.
"Unless this law is changed, we plan not to renew our contracts with cities in this state. You will have to find a different electric company." What would prevent that from happening?
Infrastructure costs. It the county doubled your property taxes, would you walk away from your home? It's not likely to happen though, electric tariffs are set by a state's public utility commission and they generally rule in favor of the utilities. My electric company, for example, pushed through a rate increase during this recession (depression?). I've been following the rate increases on my utilities for about 10 years, and I'm only aware on one time when it was denied. Although the gas company overcharged for several years and eventually had to refund some of the money.
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
Developers already pay to install electrical wiring and connect to the grid when they build a house. That cost is included in the cost of a new home. Anyone who has built a house out in the country, away from the existing grid, knows how much the electric companies charge to "bring out electricity" to a remote location. It can be in the thousands of dollars (US). So, in effect, all that cabling is already paid for. The electric companies are now just trying to get us to pay for it a second time.
It's very natural for a company to look at a problem like this from its own point of view. They are worried about losing customers and money. In theory they could become a free "Battery", having to generate power to provide at night, to have it repaid during the day.
The thing is, this isn't going to happen. Not only that, but it's hard to keep in mind that along with a companies own interests, the interests of the country and humanity in general are important.
Even if electric panels are somewhat subsidized by non-electric customers, that's okay. Let's fix it later when it actually becomes a problem.
Same with road taxes for electric cars... I'll pay an extra penny a year in road/gas taxes to encourage electric car use. When it becomes $100/year, let's re-evaluate.
Every so often when have to take a step back and say "Yeah, in a way it's a little unfair, but it pushes us in the right general direction so let's go with it until it really becomes a problem...
Ok, so you prevent your system from giving back extra during sunny days ( which is the right thing to do.. ) how would they ever know you can generate your own power? ( hey, we go on vacation a lot so we shut everything off )
Also, if i'm giving back back to the grid on good days, they are in effect getting free power to distribute elsewhere so they shouldn't bitch about it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To me it sounds like they are even better then a paying customer since they are donating to the grid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Electric Company, huh? I'd tell them:
fu.......ck fuck
o........ff off
fuck off
-Somebody stole this sig.
Denver has another rate issue in addition to the one proposed by Xcel. For several years we had drought conditions and Denver Water successfully encouraged consumers (except for golf courses) to cut back on their water usage. Then they successfully won the right to raise water rates because people were no longer buying enough water. Now we're paying more for less. The same thing is about to happen with electricity.
What owners of solar panels should do is to join hands and bite back the company by filing a suit for "unauthorized" use of power generated by them.
The utility's response:
"Fine. We'll disconnect your service. You can go 100% solar with local storage only. But I hear it is going to be mighty cold and dark this winter."
So, should you have to pay road taxes - for the upkeep of roads (presuming you live in a country where road tax is hypothecated) if you only drive backwards?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Abuse of monopoly power and can be slapped with a RICO charge for extortion under the pretext of harming my 2 yr son.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
It is the fact that Xcell has to be capable of supplying ALL THE ELECTRICITY that is needed. What happens if that is at night? Not likely, but possible. As such, Xcell needs a peak load that is so much higher, than what they normally do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I AM GLAD you are doing this. Because now you open up the dialogue in which we discuss what I am going to CHARGE YOU per kilowatt hour that I GENERATE.
The power companies would love to have this discussion but (as pointed out elsewhere) federal law has fixed the price at exactly the same price they charge you.
Seems like the easiest way to avoid that charge is batteries for your extra power generation. In the long run it would be the same as the power company paying you. If they don't want your power, which this fee seems to suggest, don't give it to them.
From Denver: $27.23 Residential General $4.50 GRSA (huh?) $0.62 Air Quality Improvements $0.32 Trans Cost Adj $14.90 Elec Commodity Adj $2.31 Demand Side Mgmt Cost $8.08 Purch Cap Cost Adj $1.17 Renew Energy Std Adj $1.77 Franchise Fee $2.21 Sales Tax $63.11 SUBTOTAL All this for an 1100sqft home Seems like they have enough fees that are unrelated to the amount of electricity that you consume. (OK, who ordered "tax"?)
Newsflash, you are the one choosing to feed back into the grid!
This is mostly an attack on solar power by making it less economic than it already is. Solar power isn't economic at the moment which is why rebates are necessary to sell it. If it was that great overall then people would be lining up to get it without the rebates in the first place. The power companies don't like solar power because it cuts down on their revenue (remember, they sell power) and they're forced by regulators to buy home-generated power usually at peak prices. This is a subtle way to try and kill it without looking like that's what they're really doing.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I have read through this thread, and it is possible I missed it, but I did not see anyone bring up this point:
I really don't think this is as one-sided as many people have portrayed it.
Anyone who produces enough solar or wind power to sell back to the grid, spent a lot of money on their own infrastructure, and has to maintain that as well. In fact, if amortized, they probably paid quite a bit more per home than the electric company did. And after all, we are talking about a "per home" situation here.
So why should the home producer pay the electric company any more for "connectivity", than the electric company pays the home producer? I do not believe that would be equitable.
Also, as others have pointed out: a "connectivity fee" is only legitimate if it is charged to all users, not just those who produce excess power from home.
And a third point, that has been brought up at least several times: When you connect your home electricity production equipment to the grid, you are required by electric company regulations (and by law, I believe, just about everywhere), to run it through conditioning equipment that precisely synchs the generated AC with that of the grid. As a result, home generation has NO effect on the grid, other than to add extra capacity. That is what that (very) expensive equipment was designed, and is required by law, to do. And the expense of this equipment reinforces the point that home producers pay plenty for their generation capacity; almost certainly more (per home) than the power company does.
I would like to know the reasoning behind that one poster's claim that excess home generation would "increase the frequency" of the AC. A lot of engineering, and regulations were put in place to ensure that exactly that would NOT happen.
I've been to the meetings of our local electricity utility board, so I'm NOT just babbling randomly.
:-)
Also, I only know the local situation, which is obviously not the only one.
Our utilities love anything that reduces demand.
They especially love renewable energies, but the rebates are paid by the government, not them.
Their only current issue with solar panels, wind power, etc, is a move by some greedy scum to pay those people premiums on the electricity they dump into the grid.
I'm with the utilities on this, there is NO reason to pay those people more than the current market value for, err... current...
Guess this is an example of greed and misdirected indignation in both situations, just with the sides getting switched.
Pete Seeger was right... they are going to find a way to charge us for using the Sun. Also, the rain and the air.
In a country area in my state it is expected that if power lines are run along your road you will have to pay a share of the cost even if you don't intend to use it.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I do not use land line phone for example at all, but must pay for the wall socket otherwise they will cut the cable leading to my house or something.
Let 'em, and then get cable Internet.
Some power companies in Australia threatened the govt in that manner over their cap and trade legislation about 2yrs ago. The govt simply ignored their obvious bluff.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Most electric companies have literally billions of dollars of investments in the cities they service.
By "investments" I take a guess that you mean "land and fixed capital", which the departing electric company would sell to the next electric company that is willing to work in the state.
Let's consider the value of the pollution externalities that the power companies benefit from every day, balance that against the cost of hooking wires to my house, and we'll call it even.
It's a really good deal for the power company.
To explain further, an externality is an economic term that refers to a cost or an impact on someone not directly involved. When a power company pollutes with a coal plant, there are many people who are impacted by the pollution, even though they are not involved in either the generation or the consumption of the electricity causing the pollution.
A homeowner bears more than his fair share of the cost of pollution, and a factory which uses far more electricity bears much less than its fair share.
Clean air is worth something. It has a value. And when that clean air is destroyed, the value is uncompensated. That's an externality.
So if the electric company wants to charge me for the house hookup, then I would like to start charging the electric company for the value of the clean air I no longer have access to.
Fair's fair.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
1) I pay a connection fee all the time its not installation.
2) I have a cabin. It has gone all year without some years and I STILL pay a connection fee for not using any power.
3) Xcel runs to the state to get tax payer money every time they do anything that SHOULD have been planned for as part of their private business; but they are essentially a sanctioned monopoly with regulations to keep the public suckered.
The power grid like the ROADS should be managed by the public; around here our roads are handled well, our bridges not so well. The one bridge that fell down you heard about in the news was actually part of the federal highway system and they should take part of the blame along with the low bid contractors involved. The public here was ALSO to blame for cutting funding for decades leading many of us to predict bridge collapses years in advance! Sadly, the public DID approve measures to restore some funding but it was too late.
Point is, a public run system like the roads can be run as well as the public's competence at democracy - regardless of the use of contractors or regulated privatization (think of the overhead: profit, regulation, enforcement, fines, corruption...all paid by the public.) The power lines, phone lines, and cable lines run over PUBLIC LAND and should be owned by the public which essentially PAYS for them; bad contractors can result in replacement contractors or government management. Rural phones, cable, power etc were forced by regulation and payed for by the users and tax payers. When a rare private investment pays for something like cable lines that is funded by the customers and quite often corporate welfare "incentives." The process encourages corruption and monopoly abuses. If Xcel merely sold power and another entity maintained the grid itself this would be much less of an issue.
FYI:
In MN we have OLD OLD gas lines around the whole city and nobody wants to pay for it and naturally Xcel didn't plan long term because that is bad business since they can just force the state to pay it. You'd think a bridge falling would wake people up but we've had gas explosion accidents for many years ALREADY but nothing big enough and frequent enough to wake people up (or the local media which gets money from Xcel.) Want to know the solution? They wait for reports of gas leaks and then check that area or maybe the road to determine if they need to fix it-- they are too cheap to run plastic pipe in the old pipe in my area and continue to make a patchwork of the road on a house-by-house basis for the last decade.
Xcel won't listen until you have a significant amount of STOCK; you can't vote, you can't shop elsewhere, and you can't revoke any local contracts with them.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've been sitting here for a while trying to wrap my brain around all the different aspects of this discussion. The thing that I can't seem to figure out is why are so many of you coming to the defense of the corporate conglomerate? They have a legal monopoly and you're concerned that they're going to lose money because some dude slaps a solar panel on his roof? Just doesn't make any sense. Everyone just loves capitalism, and socialism is the dirtiest new four letter word. What makes capitalism so great is that it governs itself just as long as you stand back and don't try to fuck with it. A simple example is if you go to Home Depot and buy 100 bags of manure to fertilize your crops and every week you go back in and they've raised the price of that manure another quarter. Sooner or later that manure is going to be so expensive you're going to find a cheaper way to get your manure. So you buy yourself some cattle, they're expensive, but sooner or later you end up with a surplus, and even sell off some of that surplus to Home Depot for half of what they sell it for. They go on to sell it to others at a 100% profit. There's capitalism, and it's worked itself out. But now Home Depot's knocking on your door talking about how you're not buying manure from them anymore and they can't turn a profit unless you continue to pay them. They cite how they've still got to maintain their store, even though you're no longer using it, so you're obligated to pay a minimum monthly fee for having the ability to go get your manure from them should you run out at any time during the month. Of course we wouldn't let this happen, Home Depot just isn't that powerful. What makes it okay for the Power Company to do it and for so many people to stand up in their defense and say it's okay? Especially with global warming finally gaining legitimacy, and it becoming clear that we need to move fast to change the way we live before we run out of time to be successful. We need to be making it cheaper to use renewable energy, not harder. I can see how the Power Company wouldn't be trilled about losing customers, so why don't they start producing renewable energy themselves, the bigger the equipment, the more efficient it usually is, so that people don't feel the need to do it themselves? However, instead of the Power Company figuring out cheaper ways to make electricity, they just submit requests to raise their rates any time their costs go up. Eventually making it not a whole lot more expensive to buy a few solar panels and a battery backup. Having a added benefit of being "Green". When the Power Company opened it's doors they had the idea that it was a fool-proof business plan. "We have a constantly growing customer base with no chance of losing those customers. We will submit a rate hike whenever our costs go up, so no need to worry about figuring out better ways to do things, and will always turn a profit. What a great business we're getting into!" Well, something's happened that they never imagined would happen. They lost a customer to Solar and now they're trying to figure out a way to make it cost too much to operate solar panels so that they don't lose any more. As long as we protect old business models that are no longer working very well, new business models will never be allowed to succeed. But this seems to be the way America works nowadays. General Motors was making cars that Americans didn't want to buy anymore because the price of fuel went up and people started buying foreign cars that were more efficient and instead of GM building more efficient cars, they got a huge bail-out from the tax payers who were the ones who didn't want to buy their cars anymore in the first place. We can't continue to protect failing industries, else we'll end up destroying ourselves. The only way our economy is going to recover is to let capitalism kill the dying so it can give birth to the strong.
how the FUCK can it be a 'free market' when a distribution is granted to a party by a 'license', which is practically a monopoly ? see, EVEN if you produce your own resources, the monopoly tries to cash you in. IF, you totally cut out your connection to the grid, its highly possible that they would sue you on various shallow excuses to scare off other customers from leaving the grid.
despite all the bullshit advertised to us by every other american, regarding 'free' market and such, i cant see any way anyone can justify this shit.
Read radical news here
LOL! If they're getting such a raw deal, what in the world makes you think someone else would want to take this supposed 'loser' off their hands for a fair price? All due respect, try to think before saying something so ridiculous in such a public forum. (Can anyone tell me why all my paragraphs are getting shoved together?)
If they're getting such a raw deal, what in the world makes you think someone else would want to take this supposed 'loser' off their hands for a fair price?
States regulate the provision of electric power, but each city chooses its own electric company. Once worse comes to worst, a departing electric company would sell its operations in a given state to an electric company that another city in the same state is using.
(Can anyone tell me why all my paragraphs are getting shoved together?)
Try using <p> tags between paragraphs, or use "Extrans" instead of "HTML Formatted".
Just because you're attached to something doesn't mean you're using it. If they use it, their meter spins, they pay for that. If they don't use it, it doesn't. Why can't it be just that simple without tacking on all of these redundant fees and charges?
> They didnt say that it was a "connection fee", it is a "connectivity fee".
> The on going costs are meant more for maintenance than for the initial connection.
"Connectivity fee", AKA "Line Charge", "Line Rental", "Daily Supply Charge", "Reticulation Charge", "Monthly Hire", etc.
Whatever you call it, it is effectively what electricity companies charge you in order to prevent them from removing the fuse that connects your house's wiring to the reticulation network going past your house.
When charged by a gangster it is called extortion.
When charged by a large corporation it is called "Legitimate Cost Recovery".
When paid by a modest ordinary consumer of electricity it is called "bloody expensive" and "the largest component in my power bill".
Large corporations may not even be charged it if their usage is massively large.
In my country one large multinational corporation consumes so very much electricity that a power station was built specifically to supply their electricity, and the unit charge is minuscule in comparison with what ordinary members of the general public pays per unit of electricity!
Basically, electricity is supplied in such a way that they get the most profit from each customer per year relative to the cost of providing that customer with the electricity.
The biggest fault with the electricity industry is the whole idea of supplying electricity "for profit" - it should be an essential resource supplied only for the cost of generation/distribution, providing for future requirements, and guaranteeing the ongoing security of supply.
I would suggest that electricity should be a community owned resource administered for the greater good of the entire community and not for the profiteering of a small number of generating companies.
Alas a secure reticulated supply of electricity/water/gas at a moderate cost is not something that the capitalist model of the economy is good at delivering for ordinary citizens.
> This much is true, though: There are certain costs involved with building, maintaining and
> connecting to the grid that are present whether the subscriber uses a single watt of electricity
> or not. It is perfectly reasonable for the company to try to recoup those costs from all their
> customers, so making that portion of your bill a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage of usage
> is quite reasonable.
While I agree that it is reasonable for an electric power board to cover the costs of supplying the electricity and maintaining the reticulation network I don't agree that frugal users should be effectively penalised while wasteful or large scale users are rewarded with substantial - even heavily subsidised - reduced costs per unit of electricity supplied.
I hold the view that a community resource should be operated for the benefit of all citizens and not just for large (multinational) corporations; and those who reduce their dependency on the electricity reticulation system should be rewarded and not penalised.
First There should be a base fee, for the maintenance to get to the grid. This should be small just perhaps a dollar or 2 a month. This is just to cover costs for no actual use at all. For the wiring from the house to the poll.
Second power is bought at a lesser rate then its sold. Some thing like half, a massive difference in, price for selling power. This is how the infrastructure should be payed for.
All of the costs must be monopoly controlled my the government so as not to destroy the economy from the greed of the infrastructure providers.
Compare with Broadband providers and you can see why we must have government oversight.
Yep, already did the ROI for solar on my house and it came out at 12 years with the best and most expensive solar panels on the market. Best I could do with panels that would be far less efficient was 10 years. Simple spreadsheet.
Now I can plug in a field for infrastructure fees and play with that.
At 10-12 years ROI before the things even start making money, they're obviously not ready for prime time unless you're a business or other special interest group getting a HUGE tax rebate.
Then your ROI drops to about 8 years, which still sucks.
The technology's not there yet. And the money to pay for development is about to be moved from solar to "cash for clunkers" anyway by the Congress, so...
My whole attitude toward solar is "Who cares?" It's not cost-effective, and the power utilized to create the panels in the first place and the chemical mess aren't even factored into my 10-12 year ROI. Factor those in, and it's not saving any planets. It's just a complex system hanging on your house adding headaches and maintenance.
A natural gas generator is smarter as a backup electrical system, if someone wants to talk about "it's a backup to the grid"... with the grid being one of the most reliable large systems ever built...
Solar is still the joke it was in the gasoline crunch of the 1970's. Only slightly less so. 10-20% improvement in almost 40 years shows it's stalled and in need of a brilliant break-through. Once that break-through happens, in today's world it's bound to be patented, trademarked, and milked for every dollar it's worth (and rightly so), meaning...
Maybe solar will make sense for the "average" home by 2030 or so.
+++OK ATH
This is the real reason for the charge, of course.
Summer is the time when the electric company makes the most money, because everyone is running their air conditioners. Solar panels generate the most electricity right when power consumption should be at its highest, so the total amount of money made by the electricity company goes down during the critical summer peak as the number of households with solar panels increases.
So the obvious solution is to discourage people from installing solar panels by tacking on an extra fee. How you rationalize the fee is entirely beside the point: the fee results in fewer homes with solar panels, which translates to more money for the electric company.
This is pure bullshit, and this bullshit is only possible because of the legal monopoly enjoyed by electric companies.