Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Electric Company Wants Monthly Fee For Solar Users

Posted by Soulskill on from the also-working-on-a-candle-penalty dept.

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."

22 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Basically it's an infrastructure fee. While they may not be using the grid's energy, it still costs money to maintain that grid. So the logic is that if they are hooked up to the grid, they should pay a maintenance fee.

    2. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The logic is that even if the customer isn't using the power from the electric company, they will still be using the companies lines when the meter runs backwards. With that logic, why should the power company be able to use land for their poles and such without compensation to the who don't use their electricity?

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    3. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Pretzalzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In essence the solar users give power to the grid during the day and then take different power back at night for a net usage of zero or minus. If the grid didn't exist they wouldn't have power at night since they aren't designed to store significant amounts of power. If a transformer blows the power company still has to fix it even though there isn't really a 'paying' customer. Of course night time power is cheaper than day time power but the solar user probably isn't being fully compensated so even without the fee the electric company is still coming out ahead, but are just being greedy.

    4. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't be suckered by the industry PR flacks' language. Many states have laws requiring them to pay people who _generate_ electricity. It is bad enough that want it for free, now they want to get paid for it, too. People generating their own power help reduce power line transmission problems and reduce peak-load problems. It is just about greed, nothing else.

    5. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      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, and the standing charge covers the cost of grid maintenance, and the unit charge covers the cost of generating electricity.

    6. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surely the price you sell the electricity to the grid for is less than the price you pay to buy it back, and this margin should cover this maintenance charge?

      If you are selling more units of electricity than you buy back, and as a result you don't pay anything, then the electric company is getting free electricity off you which they can sell to someone else to cover the cost.

    7. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by volxdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The energy companies only have to pay if a persons generation exceeds consumption and as such they start pushing energy back into the grid (IE, spin the meter backwards). It seems perfectly reasonable to assess a fee if you are still hooked up to the grid, someone has to pay for the maintenance of the grid and connection to your house and if you are getting paid for pushing energy back in to the grid, you too are using the grid, only as a provider, not a consumer. Even if you aren't actively pushing energy back into the grid, you still have the option of pulling energy from the grid (say, on cloudy days or at night if you don't have sufficient battery capacity). Either way, you're using it and should help pay for the maintenance of it.

    8. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by GuyverDH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've already paid that - it's called a connection fee...

      They're also already getting charged more for the power they do use, since their usage is lower, they get onto a higher cost per KWH rate.

      It's more than double dipping if they try to charge more, and too damned bad if their connection fee didn't cover future (I'm not using much of your power anymore).

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    9. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually no, it's about simple accounting for resources. It costs money to maintain the electric grid. There are two basic costs involved for you to receive power: 1) Cost of generating the power, 2) cost of transmitting that power. Ordinarily when you buy power from the power company they roll these together and charge you per kWh.

      When you have your own on-site generation you have 3 basic states of use: 1) Using some amount of power from the grid, 2) using zero power from the grid, 3) putting power back into the grid. For state 1 and 2 you are simply charged for electricity as per usual. It's state 3 that's problematic.

      The problem is that many people naively expect to get paid the same rate for energy they put back into the grid as energy they took from the grid. But the rate they paid to take energy from the grid was generation plus transmission. If the rate they are paid to put energy back into the grid is the same rate, e.g. "running the meter backwards" then they are effectively being paid for stealing.

      The ideal fix for this is to have two meters. One for inbound power usage and one for outbound power supply. The customer would then have to pay for inbound usage at the normal rate and would be paid for supplying power at a reduced rate. That is, they would be paid for generation of the power but would not be paid for transmission of it because they did not themselves pay for transmission.

      In lieu of this, the power company has found it easier to simply charge a connection fee to pay for this transmission. It looks bad to someone who is ignorant of the mechanics of power transmission and it doesn't seem particularly fair because it's apparently a flat fee that will be charged based on how much the company estimates the customer is using the grid to transmit power.

      That said it is still more fair than what they are doing now which seems to be paying the customers who put power back into the grid for not only the generation, which they did provide, but also for the transmission, which they did not. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the companies bottom line. So the company will eventually petition to have the electricity rates raised to cover this cost which means that everybody else will have to pay more because some people think its cool that their meter actually runs backwards.

      It's really not that difficult to understand. The problem here is that the reporter didn't check her facts or use logic or reason. Instead it's a he-said he-said story between the underdogs and the big bad evil corporation. She mentions in the article that she pressed the power company spokesman and got him to admit that "currently, no Xcel electric customers pay extra to fund solar connectivity fees. In reality, Xcel absorbs those fees." Then she goes on to say that "The money from the proposed fee would not go into the pockets of electric customers, but would go back to Xcel." This is true but no where near the whole story. Xcel has a fiduciary responsibility to account for resources used. Right now Xcel's resources are being used without payment and actually worse than that Xcel is actually paying someone else to use their resources. That is an untenable situation which can only be resolved by charging someone for it. This can be done by either correctly charging the customers who use these resources or, if this fails, by raising the rates for everyone. There are no other options. But Christin did not bother to point out the obvious here.

    10. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I call bullshit (no offense :) )

      Back in the 70s when per house power consumption was considerably less the grid was still paid for by power sales and/or a charge everyone paid. In rural areas where the cost of the infrastructure on a per house basis is much higher the infrastructure is still paid for the same ways.

      Now, per house energy consumption is at an all time high and only increasing and if you effectively use less power you are expected to subsidize the infrastructure for those who use more? If you push power into the grid at a cost less than the power company could generate it for and which they will turn around and sell at the going rate which will mean a greater profit than from their own power generation, you have to subsidize their infrastructure?

      I call bullshit. A flat infrastructure charge to everyone or this is nothing more than an attempt to tax your own power generation. The money they lose is due to free market forces (cheap solar availability) and the money they gain is from the cheaper power available to them. Any charge for infrastructure should be equal to everyone OR scaled to the infrastructure costs of the area, which would mean higher costs for rural areas.

      Are the power companies the next RIAA? Better methods exist so we'll charge you to use them since we won't make money on it?

    11. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by HereIAmJH · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's more than double dipping if they try to charge more, and too damned bad if their connection fee didn't cover future (I'm not using much of your power anymore).

      If it's anything like my electric company, they get an ongoing fee as well in the form of a minimum usage charge. I have a house I'm remodeling and I never hit minimum usage on any utility. The electric company gets a minimum $16.50 a month. I forget how much that covers. Water and sewer EACH get $14.50 a month until I use more than 1000 gallons of water. And gas wanted $27!!! a month. I told them what they could do with their connection charge, and went all electric. Now if I could just get them to pull their leaky meter and cap the line. In my opinion, the only organizations more customer abusive than a utility company are government agencies.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    12. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by zcubed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here in Colorado we have net metering, so two meters aren't needed. If my solar generates more than I use the excess is sent back to the grid, "State 3" in your post, I sell my electricity back to Xcel at wholesale prices, not what I pay if I get the power from the grid, "State 1" from your post. Lets say I need power from Xcel, I would pay them (for simplicity) 10 cents per kw, but if I generate more on a sunny day I sell it back to them for 6 cents per kw. Please point out to me how are they getting screwed again?

      Us fine folks here in Colorado passed a law several years ago that 20% of electricity has to come from renewable resources by 2020, so Xcel would benefit from having more people getting solar on their houses, but they want to have the generation facilities to keep their monopoly.

      Plain and simple, this is just a money grab by Xcel as they are going for the triple bonus of not having to generate as much electricity (less money spent on coal), getting a "connection fee", and getting closer to the requirement of 20% renewable without any capitol outlay.

      I think most all power companies are scared that their monopoly on electricity production and distribution is in jeopardy with advances and the new smart grid. Power companies are the single biggest roadblock to any advancement of our aged and ailing electrical grid. They refuse to look at any other way of doing business other than having huge power plants and huge power lines feeding. (sound familiar? Music industry anyone?) I realize that there will always be a need for power plants and lines, but there are many ways to get the job done better.

      I am guessing that you work for a power company?

    13. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a problem with this logic. If I generate excess energy this month, and if my state requires the electric company to pay me for my energy, then I get a small check and/or credit toward next month's bill. Looking at that credit, I see that the electric company is paying me about half of what they charge me for electricity. Which means, of course, that they are making a profit by redistributing my electricity.

      I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR MY SHARE OF MAINTENANCE!!

      Yes, maintenance is an important consideration, but they are being paid for that maintenance by every person who pays the utility for electricity. It's all included in the rates approved by the state in which they operate.

      This whole thing is just more dirty politics and greed.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by KingMotley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you missed the fact that even if the power evens out at the end of the month, solar users are still using the grid. They send (extra) power during the day, and pull power at night (when the panels aren't powerful enough). Hence, even though the net power usage may be 0, a solar user is using the grid every day.

      Of course, if you installed batteries to keep the power, and you ran solely on that (never drained your batteries, etc), then you aren't using the grid as much, but the power company still had to run a line to your house, and maintain it. If a storm knocks out a power line, the power company still has to fix it (and pay for the repairs). Being hooked up to the grid and using a net usage of 0KWH isn't "free" for the power company.

    15. Re:Can someone explain this guy's logic to me by ibbey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alot of people here are making various arguments about how the policy is either reasonable or not based solely on their own electric bill. Without knowing more about how Xcel Energy breaks out it's fees, it's not really possible to judge whether the proposed fee is fair or not.

      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. Otherwise, the spokesman is correct that the non-solar users rates will eventually have to be increased to subsidize the infrastructure for those who have solar.

      What isn't reasonable is for the electric company to use a fee such as this as a profit center. If they truly are doing this to be equitable to their users they should implement a reasonable fee, but lower their per kWH rate that users pay so the average non-solar user sees no increase in their current bill.

  2. Connection fees are pretty common by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Not completely outrageous by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Positive externalities are UNACCEPABLE! by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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

  5. What about their subsidies? by dedmorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Solar panels are peak power generators by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Similar logic by GoRK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In your analogy, please don't forget that you'd also be obligated to buy my leftover groceries. However, since you don't know how much I might send back, you have to pay to mail me a big box every week, which I may or may not return.