People who install solar panels may soon payer higher rates

[Mathguy]

If you're going to run almost any business, there are two costs. Fixed costs and variable costs.

The variable costs are for power generation.

The fixed costs are for the infrastructure.

Allowing people with solar to get a pass on power generation is logical.

Allowing them to not have to support the infrastructure is unfair to other consumers.

The fact that someone would try to describe this as some sort of anti-solar penalty is legitimate if the charge in unequitable but otherwise is a complete sham.

Either completely detach from the power grid OR pay your fair share for the maintenance if not the generation.

[Rivertowntalk]

People can do many different things to reduce power consumption. Solar power is one of them. If people super insulate their homes and reduce their electrical consumption by 60%, should they be charged a higher rate? If people use incandescent bulbs to save electricity should they also be charged a higher rate? There are many ways to reduce power consumption.

Along this line, if any consumer falls below a specified consumption level, Westar wants the ability to increase the rate. It is about growing revenues through a back door rate increase and not about the ability to sustain the grid.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Rivertowntalk

People can do many different things to reduce power consumption. Solar power is one of them. If people super insulate their homes and reduce their electrical consumption by 60%, should they be charged a higher rate? If people use incandescent bulbs to save electricity should they also be charged a higher rate? There are many ways to reduce power consumption.

Along this line, if any consumer falls below a specified consumption level, Westar wants the ability to increase the rate. It is about growing revenues through a back door rate increase and not about the ability to sustain the grid.

The simplest solution would be to charge everyone connected to the grid a flat fee to cover fixed expenses and then charge for actual usage at the same rate for everyone.

Since they don't charge this way, higher rates for low usage people is one way to make sure they're paying their fair share towards the basic fixed operational costs.

The same discussion is going on with regards to gas taxes used to pay for roads as we transition to more electric vehicles.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

The simplest solution would be to charge everyone connected to the grid a flat fee to cover fixed expenses and then charge for actual usage at the same rate for everyone.

Since they don't charge this way, higher rates for low usage people is one way to make sure they're paying their fair share towards the basic fixed operational costs.

The same discussion is going on with regards to gas taxes used to pay for roads as we transition to more electric vehicles.

While there is some logic in your argument, this concept fails in a free marketplace....and it should fail. For the same argument could be made and justified in the same way for nearly any business.

I mean....consider the massive costs involved to build, run, and maintain a plant that cranks out Hostess Twinkies. That Twinkie simply wouldn't be there in the 7-11 for the guy with the once a year craving, but for that costly infrastructure already in place. Yet he is getting nearly a free ride for his annual over-indulgence, paying next to nothing for that infrastructure.

There is nearly equal logic in a flat fee for Twinkie plant operational costs, after payment of which you can pack on the pounds for a bargain. Ridiculous on its face. As it is for electric power or anything else.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Mattks

"Poorer"? So if I have $1 billion I'm poor? I have less the $8.6 billion.

Westar typically provides pretty cheap electricity and they are committed to increasing wind power, so I'm not inclined to attack them too much, but I disagree with the ruling.

Free market? What do you mean? You want to allow different companies to run electrical lines and have substations all over the place. Sounds like a disaster.

I have Westar at my business and Free State at my home, Westar is cheaper, actually quite significantly cheaper.

No, just let people build their own power systems on their own property, without penalizing them. If the billionaire owners of the utility companies lose money because of it, then tough crap. That's capitalism. Nobody is guaranteed a profit. People should not have to subsidise billionaires to ensure their profits.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

While there is some logic in your argument, this concept fails in a free marketplace....and it should fail. For the same argument could be made and justified in the same way for nearly any business.

I mean....consider the massive costs involved to build, run, and maintain a plant that cranks out Hostess Twinkies. That Twinkie simply wouldn't be there in the 7-11 for the guy with the once a year craving, but for that costly infrastructure already in place. Yet he is getting nearly a free ride for his annual over-indulgence, paying next to nothing for that infrastructure.

There is nearly equal logic in a flat fee for Twinkie plant operational costs, after payment of which you can pack on the pounds for a bargain. Ridiculous on its face. As it is for electric power or anything else.

Despite the hyperbole, these people are not using outside power "once a year" as an indulgence.

They're using it daily.

Also, comparing power to twinkies since one is a substitutional good and the other is not makes the entire argument garbage.

Tell you what, based on you're argument, why don't they just disconnect completely from the power grid since it's just a once in a year thing and no different than say forgoing eating a twinkie once a year.

What if EVERYONE went solar and energy efficient. What would need to happen to the rates? I think that gets to the heart of the matter.

P.S. I'm pro solar and renewable energy. I just happen to also price products for a living and am acutely aware of expense and operational components. There are probably some good economic papers out there on the very topic we are discussing.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Despite the hyperbole, these people are not using outside power "once a year" as an indulgence.

They're using it daily.

Also, comparing power to twinkies since one is a substitutional good and the other is not makes the entire argument garbage.

Tell you what, based on you're argument, why don't they just disconnect completely from the power grid since it's just a once in a year thing and no different than say forgoing eating a twinkie once a year.

What if EVERYONE went solar and energy efficient. What would need to happen to the rates? I think that gets to the heart of the matter.

P.S. I'm pro solar and renewable energy. I just happen to also price products for a living and am acutely aware of expense and operational components. There are probably some good economic papers out there on the very topic we are discussing.

There's no hyperbole at all. As usage goes down, so do costs - both for generation and for power grid maintenance.

This discussion is philosophical - at not about the minutia of the math. You seem too tightly tied to the hundred year old one-dimensional pricing model where the regulated monopoly was the only game in town.

I'm not suggesting that the power company should operate at a loss....of course they shouldn't. Merely challenging the notion that those who are less a burden on the grid should pay a higher rate.

[Mattks]

I don't think we should compare utility providers with free market businesses. It's not the same comparison. Companies who decide to go into business for the government don't play by the same rules. Utilities can't shut off gas or electricity if the customer doesn't pay while the tempature is below freezing. We can set up these rules because utility providers are providing a service for everyone and it's not entirely possible to just go off grid. You can't just go out and disconnect your power supply and one can't choose our providers because they work as a government sponsored monopoly.

What mathguy is describing is more of a tier based rate system of payment. Those who use less pay a higher rate and the more one uses, I suppose the rate would decline. He can clarify what he means. That already exists for commercial customers. My restaurant pays different rates based on usage amount and peak time. But, I don't think that is what Westar is describing, maybe they are, but from what I read they are going specifically after customers who use solar panels.

I disagree with the ruling and don't agree that utility providers can do whatever they want to charge people. Yes, they can and should be profitable, but the type of service they provide, they won't make a profit off every customer. I doubt they make a profit off me personally, we are seldom home and don't use very much electricity. Do I want to see my rates increase simply because I don't use much electricity, of course not. We should continue to incentivize those who want to use less electricity by allowing them to spend less money. But I don't believe the utility providers should be required to buy back that electricity or store it.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Mattks

I don't think we should compare utility providers with free market businesses. It's not the same comparison. Companies who decide to go into business for the government don't play by the same rules. Utilities can't shut off gas or electricity if the customer doesn't pay while the tempature is below freezing. We can set up these rules because utility providers are providing a service for everyone and it's not entirely possible to just go off grid. You can't just go out and disconnect your power supply and one can't choose our providers because they work as a government sponsored monopoly.

What mathguy is describing is more of a tier based rate system of payment. Those who use less pay a higher rate and the more one uses, I suppose the rate would decline. He can clarify what he means. That already exists for commercial customers. My restaurant pays different rates based on usage amount and peak time. But, I don't think that is what Westar is describing, maybe they are, but from what I read they are going specifically after customers who use solar panels.

I disagree with the ruling and don't agree that utility providers can do whatever they want to charge people. Yes, they can and should be profitable, but the type of service they provide, they won't make a profit off every customer. I doubt they make a profit off me personally, we are seldom home and don't use very much electricity. Do I want to see my rates increase simply because I don't use much electricity, of course not. We should continue to incentivize those who want to use less electricity by allowing them to spend less money. But I don't believe the utility providers should be required to buy back that electricity or store it.

Your post makes little sense.

You don't agree with the ruling, but defend the concept used to justify it. Then refer to power companies as going into business for the government? Government sponsored? The word you're looking for is regulated.

Again, this discussion is philosophical, not mathematical. And the last thing that the necessity of electric service does is justify higher rate billing for low-usage customers. Particularly in an age when we are, more than ever, politically motivated to increase energy efficiency wherever possible.