Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd imagine the electric bills in Oklahoma is the same and since they cannot fairly be billed using per kWh its flat fee instead.
This is not a flat fee that is charged "instead" of a usage-based generation/distribution fee. Its a totally new fee. If your logic is pinned to only counting the same per-kWh charge assessed to all users in a system as the divisor, then you cannot factor in the additional flat charge as part of that divisor to arrive at the conclusion that you are burdening said other users by not using as much externally-generated electricity.
Its the same non-cogent logic some people tried to use to say that CFL bulbs increased the rates they were charged on their electric bills.
Immediately, any and all subsidies related to coal should cease.
It's very little and most of it is for R&D. It would have almost no affect on the market. The average monthly electric bill might go up 25 cents if those costs were passed onto the consumer.
Quote:
In addition, a law should be passed that you can't sell coal cheaper than it costs to extract it.
I can assure you no one is selling coal at a loss.
Quote:
If that doesn't raise the price of coal high enough to make thecoalman's payback work out better, than we should just tax it like we do cigarettes and alcohol. Problem solved. Even the Coalman will want to go to some other form of heat/electricity.
I'm using anthracite coal which is the highest rank of coal and the cleanest you can get, right out of the box. It's a local resource and requires very little energy expense to get it to my front door. I'm using a highly efficient coal boiler that is about 30 years old and has another 30 to go. Replacing it by itself would require an enormous of energy expense.
Due to the efficiency of the delivery system my carbon footprint and pollution emissions are far less than other common forms of heat like electric and oil. The only thing that might come close is natural gas and that may very well have higher effective greenhouse gas emissions because of all the emissions related with extracting and getting it to market.
Why are you going to unnecessarily drive up my heating costs?
Wow. that graphic you posted was stretching the thread... It finally loaded and snapped back!
Basically, it was said, because it was the only way I could think of that would get anyone to switch to clean(er) technologies. Don't worry, your coal is here to stay and at the price you are paying. It may even go down so that natural gas and other energies can't drive you away. I need to research the article that shows coal companies are selling coal at a loss in some areas. And notice I don't currently have to make any choices... Other than how do I want to get electrical power.
Not a big fan of fracking and now with the latest more methane leaks out than previously thought studies I am starting to like it even less.
This is not a flat fee that is charged "instead" of a usage-based generation/distribution fee. Its a totally new fee.
I understand that but I'm paying a $14 flat fee plus a per kWh fee that is paid for the grid infrastructure, In other words I'm paying about $40 a month before I pay anything for the actual electric. If I'm spinning the meter backwards I'm avoiding those per kWh charges but still using the service, it doesn't matter which way the electric is flowing I'm still using that service. Get it?
Quote:
Its the same non-cogent logic some people tried to use to say that CFL bulbs increased the rates they were charged on their electric bills.
If you want to use a correct analogy it would be like electric cars avoiding fuel taxes.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-25-2014 at 10:20 AM..
If I'm spinning the meter backwards I'm avoiding those per kWh charges but still using the service, it doesn't matter which way the electric is flowing I'm still using that service. Get it?
I get it [even getting past the semantics of "using the service"]. The only thing I don't get is why an additional fee should be applied on top of the per-kWh rate everyone pays.
The only thing I don't get is why an additional fee should be applied on top of the per-kWh rate everyone pays.
The per kWh distribution/transmission fee is basically a usage fee, its a fair way to distribute the costs of infrastructure. In the past no one was spinning the meter backwards so you were fairly distributing those costs to everyone. Since these people are spinning the meter backwards they are avoiding paying the fee for a service they are using.
It's almost exactly the same thing with electric cars. If you have a gasoline car the more you drive and the larger your vehicle the more you pay in fuel taxes that fund roads. If you have an electric car you're getting a free ride on the road because you aren't paying anything to fund the roads.
As theses new technologies evolve the fees and taxes need to evolve along with them so the costs are fairly distributed.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-25-2014 at 11:10 AM..
The per kWh distribution/transmission fee is basically a usage fee, its a fair way to distribute the costs of infrastructure. In the past no one was spinning the meter backwards so you were fairly distributing those costs to everyone. Since these people are spinning the meter backwards they are avoiding paying the fee for a service they are using.
It's almost exactly the same thing with electric cars. If you have a gasoline car the more you drive and the larger your vehicle the more you pay in fuel taxes that fund roads. If you have an electric car you're getting a free ride on the road because you aren't paying anything to fund the roads.
As theses new technologies evolve the fees and taxes need to evolve along with them so the costs are fairly distributed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I understand that but I'm paying a $14 flat fee plus a per kWh fee that is paid for the grid infrastructure, In other words I'm paying about $40 a month before I pay anything for the actual electric. If I'm spinning the meter backwards I'm avoiding those per kWh charges but still using the service, it doesn't matter which way the electric is flowing I'm still using that service. Get it?
If you want to use a correct analogy it would be like electric cars avoiding fuel taxes.
OK, but if you are spinning the meter back you are producing for those that are taking. You are producing the energy that the power company is selling. Where is it going when that meter spins backwards?
You keep stating those who are using solar are using the infrastructure and not giving back. How can that be when the energy still available at the time it is produced? Do you think the power companies just lock that energy away for you later? No, it is being sold to those using it at that time.
You are producing the energy for that power company you are tied with. So you say they need a extra charge for supplying the energy company and others with energy they are using?
So people who generate more energy than they use and supply the power companies with that energy are just using the infrastructure and not paying their fair share? Sure some places you can get a healthy dollar back but your still only getting a share of what you produced. You really think the energy companies aren't making anything off what you produce when that meter runs backwards?
If I'm spinning the meter backwards I'm avoiding those per kWh charges but still using the service, it doesn't matter which way the electric is flowing I'm still using that service. Get it?
Yes it does. When the electric is following backwards you are producing the energy and the power company is simply the middleman selling your energy to others. If I paid for the infrastructure at my house to produce that energy the power company can pay for its infrastructure to take the energy I'm producing to supply others. After all, We already pay the same when it runs the other way.
So we should pay when it runs both directions? When we are producing and when we are taking. That hardly seems fair.
Maybe we should charge a extra little fee for the privilege of taking our energy when we provide them with the extra energy. You know to maintain our side of the infrastructure. After-all, They are using our infrastructure that produces it and not paying for it.
A little upkeep fee. I like it.
Use it to add more panels, produce more energy and charge bigger fees in a few years just like they do.
OK, but if you are spinning the meter back you are producing for those that are taking. You are producing the energy that the power company is selling. Where is it going when that meter spins backwards?
They are paying retail rates so they aren't making anything and can make it far cheaper themselves. What it amounts to is you are banking electric and to do that you need the grid infrastructure.
Quote:
You keep stating those who are using solar are using the infrastructure and not giving back.
This is not a charge for electric. Wires are not free, they are paying for the wires and everything else required to move electric around. These systems are reliant on the grid so they can put power into the system when they have excess and take it when they need it. Look at it this way, if everyone had solar system connected to the grid who's paying for the grid?
Quote:
You really think the energy companies aren't making anything off what you produce when that meter runs backwards?
Again they are paying retail rates, they are just trading electric back and forth. The power company doesn;t gain anything and if they are required to buy more than the producer is using they would actually lose money. This is huge benefit for the homeowner because they don't have to install very expensive battery storage.
Perhaps this will help. Suppose we have one house that uses 2MWh no solar, 1 house that uses 1 MWh no solar and another that uses 1MWh with solar.
House 1's bill might be $120 for power generation and $80 in per kWh fees for distribution and transmission.
House 2's bill might be $60 for power generation and they are only paying $40 per kWh fees for distribution and transmission. That's the fair way to do it because house 2 requires less infrastructure.
House 3 with solar is producing 1 MWh with their solar panels, throughout the month they put electric into the grid when they have excess and take it out when they need it. The end result is the charge for power generation is $0 and the per kWh fee is also $0 for distribution and transmission despite the fact they are using the distribution and transmissions services just like the houses 1 & 2.
That's where this fee in Oklahoma comes in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
