Skip to main content

Arizona Public Service has proposed new rules for its residential customers who install solar. The extra charges proposed for those ratepayers would effectively kill off rooftop solar in this sun-drenched state. According to an Arizona Republic article today:

Arizona Public Service Co. is proposing charging customers who install rooftop solar panels $50 to $100 or more a month to cover the cost of maintaining the power grid.
Now it's not too unexpected that a for-profit monopoly would go after solar but guess who else apparently is involved in helping with the APS attack!

Well we shouldn't really be too surprised but it turns out that malevolent duo, the Koch brothers may be helping with APS' PR attack on its own customers:

A Washington, D.C.-based conservative organization called 60 Plus, which focuses on seniors’ issues such as taxes, Social Security and Medicare, has produced an online video and created a website, azsolarfacts.com, in which it takes the side of APS in the solar debate.

The 60 Plus group has previously received funding from billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch. The group also received $9 million from an Arizona political consultant named Sean Noble, Bloomberg reported in October.

Noble is a paid consultant for APS, though utility officials would not disclose his services or discuss whether he was involved in crafting the 60 Plus campaign.

Who is Sean Noble? Apparently, he's one of those secretive operatives who have taken full advantage of the notorious Citizens United decision:
Noble’s political activity sheds light on a Cayman Islands- style web of nonprofit front groups and shell companies that are increasingly being used to protect the identities of donors who want to get involved in politics in big ways without leaving a trace.
APS, Noble, and the Koch brothers will have a fight on their hands. The proposal has to be approved by the elected Arizona Corporation Commission which is unfortunately run by Republicans. I plan to attend any public meetings they have to express my opposition. Interestingly, a Republican group headed up by Barry Goldwater Jr, apparently is leading the opposition. Guess I'll be helping them.

Originally posted to Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by Phoenix Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Lotta folks may go off-grid... n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darwinian Detrius

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:41:09 PM PDT

    •  Off Grid is prohibitively expensive... (8+ / 0-)

      folks just won't do solar at all. We have so much sun here, getting rid of solar would be travesty.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo. At least you concede the point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, pngai

        Many solar enthusiasts fail to acknowledge that non-solar rate payers heavily subsidize solar ones.

        And because solar tends to be installed by more affluent households, what you actually have are transfer payments from the working and middle-class to the wealthy.

        I realize that many of you will disagree with my description.

        But it is what it is.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

        by PatriciaVa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, lemme see, we sell power to the utility from (8+ / 0-)

          our system that we paid for.

          Therefore, they don't have to build a new plant, meaning lower rates.

          So how in Centrist Economics does that hurt ANY ratepayers?

          "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

          by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:47:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Koch Bros. don't get as much... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sturunner, Ian S, bbctooman, Calamity Jean

            ...hey, wait a minute!

            Do the Koch Bros. own any APS stock? Does APS use any Koch-produced fuel to provide electricity?

            I smell a big hydrocarbon rat...

            Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

            by JeffW on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:00:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  sturunner - the problem with solar and wind (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pngai

            is that they have little impact on peak power needs of the utilities. Wind is variable and the solar on your roof starts a downward slope of energy production long before you turn down your AC on a hot summer night. The only thing that really impacts peak power is for enough customers to agree to allow the utility to manage your AC when they need the juice, demand response.

            The Public Utility Commissions have agreed to a certain level of revenue to provide the utility with a stable base. As distributed power increases the cost at the utility don't decline much at all, but if the revenue for selling electricity drops too much you have bankrupt utilities.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:28:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is sinply NOT the case in Arizona... (6+ / 0-)

              These days, it's typically 100F by 10-11 AM - our air conditioners work hard all afternoon and evening but especially hard in the afternoon in the intense sun.

              Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

              by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:49:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  VClib - That doesn't equate to a "subsidy" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              semiot, Calamity Jean

              for solar. In essence, you're saying that if the utility doesn't sell enough power to cover its costs, it will go bankrupt.
                 By your reasoning, people who shop at Walmart are subsidizing Amazon shoppers, because if Walmart doesn't sell enough product, it will go bankrupt.

              •  dallasd - the economics of utilities (0+ / 0-)

                are different that a normal market because utilities are highly regulated by state public utility commissions unlike Walmart and Amazon. When a utility makes a capital investment in power generation or distribution infrastructure it does so after negotiating with the public utility commission regarding how the capital investment will be funded by rate payers over the next two decades. Because in most cases the utility has a monopoly on your connection to the grid they are highly regulated. If they weren't they could charge each customer a market clearing price or cut you off the grid. As more power generation is provided by rooftop solar that doesn't change the fact that the utility's investment in generation and distribution still must be paid and that payment needs to be from everyone on the grid.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 06:14:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Simply false in the case of solar (0+ / 0-)

              in most locations and at most times.  Solar corresponds almost exactly to peak power needs in most circumstances, with peak generation corresponding with peak demand.  The only hitch in the picture is that in some places there's a second winter peak where there's heavy use of electric heating.  But then again, wind blows a lot more in winter than

              •  Oops. (0+ / 0-)

                Post failure, let's try again.

                Simply false in the case of solar in most locations and at most times.  Solar corresponds almost exactly to peak power needs in most circumstances, with peak generation corresponding with peak demand.  The only hitch in the picture is that in some places there's a second winter peak where there's heavy use of electric heating.  But then again, wind blows a lot more in winter than summer, so there you go (it's steadier in winter, too, and it also blows more at night than during the day).

                The medium-term future for the grid is roughly constant hydro + nuclear, significantly decreasing coal, steadily increasing NG (ultimately migrating to predominantly peaking usage), and significantly increasing wind and solar (hopefully geo as well).  Such a system all plays well together.  And you can keep pushing the wind and solar up as much as you want with any combination of peaking, storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, etc), adaptive demand / smart grid (esp. combined with EVs), long distance transmission, and baseload-capable renewables designs (solar thermal storage, high altitude wind, etc, plus hopefully, as stated, significant geo (EGS)).

                An important thing to remember about intermittency: the grid already deals with intermittency, and has been from the beginning.  It's demand intermittency.  And from a practical standpoint, there's little difference between generation intermittency and demand intermittency.  We already know how to deal with it.  We already do deal with it.  It's not some giant unsolved problem.

        •  perhaps because it is more complicated (10+ / 0-)

          because of course depending on the rate structure, people who install solar still pay for the transmission capacity they use when they pay for power during the night or when they use more than their panels produce, in direct proportion to their use of the electricity.  IN addition, people who install solar also subsidize grid users because they carry investment costs that the ratepayers would have to pay if the utility were to install additional capacity that is avoided by the installation of solar.

          Thus, it isn't entirely clear who subsidizes whom (it depends on whether you have net metering and what rates the utility pays and other details of the rate case) under a full accounting.  In any event, $100 a month is absurdly out of proportion and is clearly designed to kill alternatives to utility power.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

          by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Electricity Consumption has barely budged over... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            the last 7 years.

            And more of the same is expected.

            Whatever arguments you may have for solar, saving the utilities the capx associated with another plant to meet additional expected consumption isn't a valid one.

               January 2, 2013, 7:39 p.m. ET

            U.S. Electricity Use on Wane

            http://online.wsj.com/...

            Americans are using more gadgets, televisions and air conditioners than ever before. But, oddly, their electricity use is barely growing, posing a daunting challenge for the nation's utilities.

            The Energy Information Administration is projecting that electricity use in the U.S. will rise an average of just 0.6% a year for industrial users and 0.7% for households through 2040.

            That's a far cry from the middle decades of the past century, when utilities could rely on electricity consumption growing by more than 8% a year. Even after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the growth in electricity demand averaged 2% to 4% annually. But those days may be long gone.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

            by PatriciaVa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:19:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here in Arizona, we'll likely be shutting down... (6+ / 0-)

              a huge but dirty coal fired plant. Something will have to replace it I should think. Do you support keeping dirty coal plants running?

              Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

              by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:53:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course strangely (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              semiot, unfangus, Calamity Jean

              People still build new capacity because of the need to replace obsolete capacity and because 0.7% of a large number is still not zero.  If you had a notion of how rate cases are constructed you'd know that in fact the move to DG as well as the efficiency measure driving a lot of this pattern do replace the need for additional generation.  In fact regulators often require utilities to promote efficiency to forestall the need for expensive (for ratepayers) additional generation capacity.  So, yes, in the real world it is definitely a cost saved to consumers.  

              Besides, it seems that people who use the grid leas because theyve installed solar should pay less for it.  Let the people who are using it 24x7 pay for it

              Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:01:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  APS won't have to replace their ancient coal (0+ / 0-)

              fired power plants.

            •  That's at least partly because more people (0+ / 0-)
              Electricity Consumption has barely budged over the last 7 years.  
              have been installing ever-cheaper solar PV and improving their efficiency using electricity.  A lot of the non-growth of electrical consumption is because of the Great Recession.  

              Renewable energy brings national global security.     

              by Calamity Jean on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 12:00:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wealthy? That's a crock... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sturunner, highacidity

          The wealthy don't give a shit about saving $50 a month by installing solar. They are not the ones putting $0 down on a 20 year lease.

          Oh wait. "Centrist Economics." "The Hamilton Project." "Robert Rubin." Now I get it.

          Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

          by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:44:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  PatriciaVa - By what reasoning are you claiming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          that non-solar ratepayers are subsidizing solar? Solar users either don't have their systems connected to the grid, in which case they use less power, period...just as you would if, say, you put a timer on your water heater.
             Or, they're in a relationship withe the grid in which they sell excess power back to the utility and, when their solar power falls short of their demand, buy power from the utility.

        •  Yes I'm sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          that the Koch brothers and the utility monopolies only have the best interests of working-class consumers in mind with this.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 05:59:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Off grid is expensive because of needing to (0+ / 0-)

          buy and maintain a lot of expensive heavy batteries. Grid-tied solar is much cheaper.  If the utility has net metering, the cost to the utility of solar is the retail price of the power that they supply, because that's what the utility credits to the solar system's owner.  There's a big difference between the two types of systems.  

          Renewable energy brings national global security.     

          by Calamity Jean on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or, splitting the power... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cactusgal

        ...and using the solar to power, say, heavy daytime-use appliances. Like air conditioning.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:03:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Jeff - it's hard and expensive to go off the grid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judge Moonbox, Calamity Jean

      if you want stable 24/7/365 power.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm surprised Goldwater Jr. is opposing this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian S, jakedog42, cotterperson, JeffW

    The Goldwater Institute isn't exactly known for progress - is Barry Goldwater Jr. part of the Goldwater Institute, do you know?

    Republished to Phoenix Kossacks.

  •  The Brothers Who Govern at the Fed State & Local (7+ / 0-)

    level.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Say Is This For Those Wanting to Feed Power Back (6+ / 0-)

    into the grid or also those who never intend to ?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:47:54 PM PDT

    •  Grid-Tied Only... (11+ / 0-)

      If you don't have a utility connection, it won't apply. However, if you ever get any electricity from the utility, you'd be charged. It would make grid-tied solar prohibitively expensive here. Which is exactly what APS - and the Koch brothers - want.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:54:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep That'll Kill It nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, Calamity Jean

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:21:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Makes for Strange Bedfellows (0+ / 0-)

        Solar Industry and the Tea Party

        All to preserve massive transfer payments from non-solar (pooer) ratepayers to solar (more affluent) ones.

        Solar Groups Seek Tea-Party Support

        Renewable-Energy Firms Seek Conservative Backing as Utilities Seek to Trim Price They Pay Homeowners

        http://online.wsj.com/...

        In Arizona, where the solar industry and the state's largest utility, Arizona Public Service, are battling, a statewide trade group representing home solar-installation companies has launched a group called Tusk—Tell Utilities Solar won't be Killed—headed by Barry Goldwater Jr., the son of the late conservative icon. It uses an elephant as its logo, much like the GOP, and has turned up political pressure on the elected state panel that sets energy policy.

        In television commercials and online ads and videos, Mr. Goldwater has argued that the utility is trying to "extinguish" solar power and preserve a monopoly on electricity production.
        ................

        Mark Schiavoni, an executive vice president at Arizona Public Service, a unit of Pinnacle West Capital Corp., PNW -0.21% said its 18,000 customers with rooftop solar are effectively being subsidized by 1.1 million other ratepayers. He sees the solar industry's appeal to free-market conservatives as a ploy. "They are trying to protect their business," he said, "and they will fight tooth and nail" to prevent any rule changes on how much homeowners are paid for excess electricity.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

        by PatriciaVa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:40:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, there's "excess electricity" because of solar, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, Calamity Jean

          so prices are lower.  Of course that's baaad for the Kochs & good for ALL the rest of us & future generations.

          And you're OPPOSED?

          "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

          by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:55:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm opposed to Poorer Ratepayers having.. (0+ / 0-)

            ..to pay rates higher than they otherwise would, just to ensure that solar is acceptably affordable.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

            by PatriciaVa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:58:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And how, pray tell, does that happen? Fewer new (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jabney, Calamity Jean, highacidity

              plants, lower rates for the "poor."

              You're opposed to that?

              "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

              by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:03:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Poorer NonSolar Households pick up the tab of the. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, pngai

                ..affluent solar panel households.

                http://www.calwatchdog.com/...

                That’s the unintended consequence of a state diktat that PG&E, SoCal Ed and SDG&E purchase atoms from home solar generators at the same price they resell them to non-solar customers. That makes it impossible to cover their fixed costs.

                Akbar Jazayeri, vice president of regulatory operations for SoCal Ed, explained the dilemma facing California utilities to Bloomberg News. “You get into a situation,” he said, “where you have a transmission and distribution system with nobody paying for it.”

                And the situation of which Jazayeri spoke will get progressively worse as the state government proffers financial incentives to those that install solar panels on their roofs.
                - See more at: http://www.calwatchdog.com/...

                .............

                Stanford University economist Frank Wolak, an expert on California’s electricity market, told the Times that consumer electricity bills could rise as much as 50 percent by the time Buffet and his fellow solar prospectors are generating megawatts.
                - See more at: http://www.calwatchdog.com/...

                Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

                by PatriciaVa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:12:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Can you cite anything that doesn't come from a (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jabney, Calamity Jean, highacidity

                  right-wing website?

                  Ya' know, something that does't reveal your economic & political cluelessness?  

                  "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

                  by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:27:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  stu - regardless of where the material (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PatriciaVa

                    is published it's a real issue and we can look to Europe where there is more distributed power to see the impact on utilities and all power customers. Unless you are completely off the grid there is a large fixed cost to provide you with on demand, stable 24/7/365 power when you want it, even if you don't use it very often. However, in Europe and the US nearly everyone uses the utility power at night or on cloudy or rainy days.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:37:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Right. The devil is in the details. Obviously, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      highacidity

                      in resort areas with  heavy seasonal use, the better off pay more per unit because of high fixed connection charges, as it should be.

                      I, of course, don't object to that.  Each situation is different.

                      Solar can reduce long-term capital investments in the grid, & if the for-profit sector can't manage it, there are alternatives.

                      "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

                      by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:04:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  So change the formula where a unit sold by a solar (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  semiot, Calamity Jean

                  customer to the power company is the same amount as a unit sold by the power company to a solar home when their demand is not met by the solar unit.  $50 to $100 a month for an added fee is more than the monthly electric bill most smaller homes, condos, and apartments receive in the milder winter months.  So solar homes would be paying more towards grid maintenance in those months than the "less affluent" homes would pay for their electricity and grid maintenance share.

                •  PatriciaVa - The gist of what these guys are (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  semiot

                  saying is this: Utilities have fixed costs. The price that they charge for electricity includes their fixed costs.
                     They don't want to buy from distributed solar users, but if they do, they want to pay some low wholesale, not retail rate.
                      But, IMHO (as an economist) is that solar power is a pass through. They buy at a retail rate and sell at a retail rate.
                      The fixed costs of the utility aren't relevant to the transaction.
                       If grid tied solar were to become prevalent, utilities would have some financial problems. But that would be because their generating structure is designed to operate at a larger scale, not because somebody is subsidizing somebody else.
                     

        •  Tea Party was born sold out. (0+ / 0-)

          Ever since Rick Santelli ranted on his show about how the people on the bottom were to be blamed, the Tea Party has served the interest of the rich and not the people it wanted to join.

          The tactic of getting the poorer members of the first class citizenry to blame the members of the second class goes back to 1676.

          The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

          by Judge Moonbox on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:45:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the diary, I read the article at work (9+ / 0-)

    and thought that the info should be passed on.  Most home owners who have solar rent the panels, so powering their home isn't free, they have to pay the rental fee.  An extra $50 to $100 charge from the power company, may make it more expensive for a home owner to have solar than to just stay on the grid.  If APS is successful in pushing this through, it could literally stop grassroots solar just as it is taking off here in AZ.

  •  I have solar and (13+ / 0-)

    am on the grid. PG&E charges me $5 a month which covers all costs, fees, and taxes. I generate more than I use but it's generally in exact balance.

    Ceiling Cat rules....srsly.

    by side pocket on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:05:39 PM PDT

  •  Not surprising (6+ / 0-)

    fossil fuel utilities trying to kill off solar. Last thing they want to see is a bunch of houses with solar panels on top. My electric co-op puts out a monthly rag with the same meme that solar isn't feasible. Pure propaganda.

  •  this is not particularly a "solar" issue, (4+ / 0-)

    and has been around for a long time.  It is common for rural electric companies and companies with a lot of "seasonal" dwellings ("vacation homes") to have split billing . . . a fixed monthly charge to cover connection and a second variable charge for power used.  This is done so the "seasonal" and "remote" users don't get a free ride on line and system maintenance.  I have had service billed thusly from electric coops in both Oregon and Washington.  In the Washington case the connect charge was flat across the system, in Oregon (more rural) it was based on line mileage and number of services on the transformer.  In both those locations adding solar would have reduced the variable charge but had no effect on the fixed "connection" charge.

    In urban environments where per-meter billings are more uniform connection charges are commonly "folded in" to the "use" billing, on the assumption that it all averages out to "close enough" and no one is really getting stuck paying for someone else's connection.  Adding "solar" to an urban mix raises the same issues as seasonal use for rural users, and split billing that separates out the connection charge does not seem all that unreasonable.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

  •  "Facility Charge" (6+ / 0-)

    That's what my rural electric cooperative calls the $42 per month fee. But it is charged to all customers. A fee to maintain the grid is reasonable in my opinion, especially in the rural area were I live. I saw the heroic work the line crews did getting power re-established after an ice storm 2 and a half years ago. If the grid maintenance fee is charged to all customers, then it should not deter people from installing solar. It should be accompanied by a small decrease in rates so it's not a big windfall for the utility.

    •  cocinero - this seems like the fair way (5+ / 0-)

      A flat monthly connection fee that everyone pays who is connected to the grid and then a variable charge based on how much power you use.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:33:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think all of us in this thread (except the, ah, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        semiot, Calamity Jean, highacidity

        Rubinesque one) are in broad agreement.  Each situation is different.

        It is GOOD if an ocean of solar panels prevents a new fossil or nuke power plant.  It is also crucial that fixed costs be allocated fairly.  And, I dare say, progressively.    

        "I'll not yield. -- Wendy Davis" "Fear is a habit. I am not afraid. -- Aung San Suu Kyi"

        by sturunner on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:22:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What APS is talking about is a special (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, semiot, cocinero, Calamity Jean

      fee only for solar customers. The idea that APS only has the best interests of the non-solar ratepayers at heart is absolutely laughable. They want to eliminate solar that they don't own.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:02:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My family has a cabin in the White mountains (0+ / 0-)

        (northeastern AZ).  I just check the power bill from Navopache Electric Cooperative.  They use a system of fixed monthly charges since there are many seasonal and part time residences.  The amount of the fixed charges is $30.18, way below the fee that APS wants to charge solar customers.  Since the summers are milder up in the mountains, I wonder how SRP (the other utility co. in metro Phoenix) and Tucson Electric Power break down their charges, since it would give a more apples to apples comparisons if they used a fixed grid maintenance charge.

    •  "Facility charge" etc came about in the 1970s (0+ / 0-)

      when electric rates skyrocketed and people began seriously conserving energy. The charge is designed to discourage energy conservation. The economic arguments are just bafflegab to disguise the fact that you're paying for a product you're not buying.

  •  on our bill (0+ / 0-)

    Electricity is about $.08 a kWh and $.03 a kWh to be delivered.  Only one company can deliver it[and so always get the delivery charge], but you can buy the actual electricity from any company.  So even if you are effectively buying the electricity from yourself it would seem like you should still be liable for the $.03 a kWh if the electricity goes out on the lines and then comes back.

  •  Short-Sighted Utility. Again. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal, Calamity Jean

    The utility is missing the boat, again.  They should be writing service/maintenance contracts on the solar systems.   A Maintenance Contract on a reliable system is almost FREE MONEY, but conservative utilities cannot think outside the box they have built for themselves.  
    The only way to advance in a large electric utility is to have managed a big, multi-million-dollar project.  Utilities do not know how to "think small".

  •  also, check this out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal, Calamity Jean

    AZSOLARFACTS website

    It tries to convince Arizona people (poor stupid seniors all of them) not to allow those dirty fucking hippy California types in to install solar.  Of course this "Arizona" website is funded and operated by 60plus.com

    To bad the MSM doesn't out these fuckers for the deep-pocket-funded bullshit artists they truly are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site