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.
A recent move by Wisconsin utility We Energies to not only raise electricity rates on all consumers but also to add an additional charge on those who produce their own energy and sell it back to the grid has sparked outrage within the state and beyond. The plan would raise the “fixed charge” on all customers’ electric bills from $9 to $16 a month, as well as reduce net metering — a policy that enables customers with solar panels or other forms of distributed generation to sell their excess electricity back to the grid — and add a new charge on these electricity-generating customers.
It's not an extra fee, because they are putting power into the grid they are avoiding paying for some or all of the transmission/distribution costs. It's a little easier to understand looking at this bill because here in PA we can choose who our electric provider is which may be a different company than the distributor. The electric and transmission/distribution fees are itemized.
If you had solar and were putting just as much electric into the grid as you were taking out your transmission/distribution charges would be $0 despite the fact you re using that infrastructure. Of course if the solar panel owner thinks these fees are unreasonable they can forgo net metering and install their own much more expensive storage system.
Sorry, I am a huge supporter of renewable energy, but I don't think it's fair to expect end users to connect to the grid at no cost. It is very expensive to provide the grid infrastructure, and to keep it stable in the face of the variations of output from natural sources like sun and wind.
Here in Hawai'i the minimum monthly charge for connection to the grid is $20. With net metering you get charged for the electricity you use, and get credited for the excess electricity you feed into the grid, on a kWh to kWh basis. Any excess you generated go into a credit against future use. What this means, in effect, is that most people I know pay $20 a month to connect to the grid.
Seems fair to me, considering what the utility company provides.
It costs about $25 - 30/month to connect to the grid whether you use any electricity or not. Most state commissions want to set the fixed charge rate lower than that for political reasons. That causes cost recovery problems when dealing with distributed generation.
Any idea what the cost of fuel (assuming it it likely to be coal in my area) is for the generation per kW?
That would be per kWh not per kW and for coal typically about 1 - 1.5 ¢/kWh. If natural gas more like 4 - 6 ¢/kWh, but much lower capital and operating costs.
Doesn't that cost vary widely depending on where you are?
I am assuming DC that you are quoting costs in your area?
--
I am with OpenD here, if you want to use the grid there should be a fee involved. Also a lot of power companies have the regulations so that you only get credit for power at the wholesale cost price point. So if you generated 1000 KWH at the end of month and used 1000 KWH's you would still be paying a few cents a KWH. (The difference between retail power and wholesale power costs) The fiar way would be what you use is offset at the retail level and what you produce in excess should be credited at the wholesale level and a small putting the power back into the grid fee. Remembering that if you don't use any power at all, you still have an electric bill... That credit for use later is OK, but at one point shouldn't you be able to cash in your credits? (I think so).
It all boils down to just how much, if at all, do you want to encourage people to have their own power generation systems at their house or business. And of course politics plays a huge role in this as well. SO what is "fair" and what will happen may not be the same thing. I am all for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power, hydro-electric power, as well.
It's not an extra fee, because they are putting power into the grid they are avoiding paying for some or all of the transmission/distribution costs. It's a little easier to understand looking at this bill because here in PA we can choose who our electric provider is which may be a different company than the distributor. The electric and transmission/distribution fees are itemized.
If you had solar and were putting just as much electric into the grid as you were taking out your transmission/distribution charges would be $0 despite the fact you re using that infrastructure. Of course if the solar panel owner thinks these fees are unreasonable they can forgo net metering and install their own much more expensive storage system.
No, it is very difficult to install your own off-grid storage system for solar harvest.
As solar power becomes more prevalent, those "fees" associated with using the infrastructure are going to skyrocket. It is just starting.
The whole idea behind solar and many such initiatives isn't about the environment, it is about transferring the fee system from one product to another. That is the reason why there is nearly zero development for residential off-grid electrical storage systems. It isn't like it can't be done or cost effective, people are buying electric cars and claiming they are cost effective.
The goal is to transfer electricity to a infrastructure use fee system instead of selling a commodity. Eventually, the entire solar industry for residential use will be a zero sum gain with residential customers paying the same amount to have their own solar as opposed to using generated electricity.
The only thing that is happening is that the power generators and eliminating their costs to provide power and instead are doing nothing more than creating toll lanes so you can use the very energy to harvest yourself.
Is is no different that growing your own vegetables and having to pay someone before you can eat them.
Regulations have made it extremely difficult to use off-grid solar solutions in residential buildings. Why is that? Simple, once you go down that road, guess who no longer gets money from you? As always, follow the money.
No serious development is going on to create efficient residential electric storage systems because it eliminates the need to pay "fees" to power generating companies. It is really that simple.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,861 posts, read 81,878,104 times
Reputation: 58307
This is the same as raising the charges per CCF for water when the people are conserving, the fixed costs to the utility remain the same and in fact are increasing, so they have to make up for the lost revenue to maintain the infrastructure and pay their employees. In order to really benefit from alternative sources you have to go off the grid entirely, and that means moving to the back woods because municipalities require you to use their services when they are available.
This is the same as raising the charges per CCF for water when the people are conserving, the fixed costs to the utility remain the same and in fact are increasing, so they have to make up for the lost revenue to maintain the infrastructure and pay their employees. In order to really benefit from alternative sources you have to go off the grid entirely, and that means moving to the back woods because municipalities require you to use their services when they are available.
Wrong. These so called "fixed costs" are one of the biggest scams going.
If the engineers who designed the infrastructure didn't plan to scale down as well as up, is that the fault of customers?
The largest so called fixed costs are employees and in the case of power generation, the equipment used in direct efforts to generate power. To a much lesser extend, maintenance of distribution lines.
Shouldn't the lesser demands on the power generating equipment offset the other maintenance costs?
We all know that the fuels used to generate the power are the highest cost, so if less is being used, less is needed and blaming the need for fees on fixed costs is just hiding what is really going on.
If you listen to what the power companies feed you, don't they all tell you that they take units off-line when not needed and therefore use that to keep costs to consumers down? Well then?
This is a want it both ways issue, not a fixed costs issue. The maintenance of the distribution infrastructure is a drop in the bucket compared to other costs but is used to initiate this "fee" which will have no limits. They will continue to go up.
And no, this is nothing like water. That is just a smoke screen analogy. Even so, that water fixed cost nonsense is just the failure of planning, not anything else.
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.
