Net Metering to Distributed Generation Program.

[Sunking]

So I went to the workshop tonight and and met a couple other solar producers. Most were not there which was unfortunate. And really it is 24 solar households now instead of 13.

The workshop was really just a sales job for the new program.

Their biggest arguments were,

Solar absolutely has no benefit to the city in any way at all. I asked if there was any benefit at all and the Director said a flat out "No!"

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

Solar credits have never been used so not valid.

Peak or non-peak absolutely does not matter at all as the rate is the same and the power costs are the same.

"The poor" and "the little old lady next door" is subsidizing your solar, need to protect all the other non-solar customers.

They city basically said they funded the solar program rebates and Net Meter agreements the last 5 years out of the goodness of their hearts for no benefit at all to the city.

It was interesting to say the least.

Anyone want to tackle any of those?

Everything they said is TRUE. Look at it this way. You need gas in your car. There are 2 gas stations on the corner. One sells gas for $3/gal and the other $6/gal. Which one do you buy? The choice and truth is easy to see.

[Sunking]

Isn't the purpose of California SB1 to help offset peak demand? If it can do it on a large scale, does that not happen on a smaller scale such as the city transmission lines too? I can understand when the solar production surpasses the usage on the transmission lines but, with only 13 PV systems in the whole city electric area of about 2500 homes, it seems to me the 15-20 amps my PV system is generating is being used up with my home and immediate neighbors giving 4kW to 5kW of relief to miles of transmission lines in the city and state.

The flaw in your thinking is that 15 to 25 amps on your side of the service transformer equates to 15 to 20 amps on the transmission side if completely false. Distribution is at 13.2 Kv and Transmission as high as 750 Kv, not the 240 volts at your transformer. 5 Kw on a 13.2 Kv Distribution line is 0.38 amps, and on 750 Kv Transmission is .006 amps. Neither is enough to make a bit of difference on lines that carry up to 2000 amps. It is like saying carrying an extra quarter in your pocket is going to effect your cars gas mileage. So if you bring that up to informed people are going to know that and completely dismiss anything you have to say.

[silversaver]

I know it is a "2 meters" system now. you sell all your generated power back to the grid at 0.0865 per kWh. Is it the net (after your usage like net metering) or you have to sell ALL of your power generatied? Find out on this part, it is very important. At least you can use less energy from the grid during solar production and make your money worth.

[russ]

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

They happen to be right but they should have never opened the door then.

[jschner]

So I went to the workshop tonight and and met a couple other solar producers. Most were not there which was unfortunate. And really it is 24 solar households now instead of 13.

The workshop was really just a sales job for the new program.

Their biggest arguments were,

Solar absolutely has no benefit to the city in any way at all. I asked if there was any benefit at all and the Director said a flat out "No!"

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

Solar credits have never been used so not valid.

Peak or non-peak absolutely does not matter at all as the rate is the same and the power costs are the same.

"The poor" and "the little old lady next door" is subsidizing your solar, need to protect all the other non-solar customers.

They city basically said they funded the solar program rebates and Net Meter agreements the last 5 years out of the goodness of their hearts for no benefit at all to the city.

It was interesting to say the least.

Anyone want to tackle any of those?

[+3 Golfer]

..

By the way, after lobbying hard to get VoS passed into law last year, none of the utilities have actually filed a VoS tariff yet. Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

All that is happening is ratepayers (community at large) will be paying $ now to avoid paying them later. Where does the utility get the $? From those that can't afford solar. Where do the $ go? To the people that can afford solar.

1978 PURPA again.

[Ian S]

Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

I love it! That may be useful here in Arizona. TUSK is organizing a rally at the state house on June 4 to lobby against property tax on leased solar. I'll be there.

[pleppik]

Good luck, seriously. Whether we all agree or not, you're doing what more of us (me included) take for granted and maybe could be doing more of in a free society. FWIW, your actions give me pause for thought and make me a bit embarrassed and ashamed for my laziness and cynicism. Bitching is easy. Getting involved takes a sack.

Funny thing is, getting involved at a local level is really easy.

Over the past year I have been heavily involved in a (successful) lobbying effort unrelated to solar power. And I learned some amazing things:

• Nobody ever goes to city council meetings. Show up and you will be heard.
• Very few people ever meet with their state legislators in person. Show up and you will be heard.
• Most politicians at the local level are just like me: ordinary citizens who cared enough to get involved.

[pleppik]

Anyway, I was the only one there out of the 13 solar homes but the council agreed to check into the grandfathering for existing solar homes. They were also invited to the solar workshop tomorrow run by the City Electric Director who personally tried to argue points and obviously does not have solar in his best interest.

Trying to get a few of the other 13 solars to jump onboard. We will see how it all goes.

One resource which might be helpful in arguing your case is Minnesota's "Value of Solar" methodology document.

The quick summary is that last year the state passed a law allowing utilities to substitute a Value of Solar (VoS) tariff for net metering; under this tariff the customer would buy all power at retail and sell all produced power at VoS. But the state also specified that the VoS rate had to include all the benefits to the utility of the generated PV, as well as avoided pollution costs.

So the state went through a months-long process to figure out how to calculate VoS, and everyone (utilities, customers, PV installers, etc.) got to have their say as to what the value of solar really is.

And at the end, they produced a detailed document with actual calculations. Here it is.

The exact numbers will differ quite a bit from place to place, but this gives you a concrete way to show that PV really does have value, and a way to calculate it.

By the way, after lobbying hard to get VoS passed into law last year, none of the utilities have actually filed a VoS tariff yet. Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

[J.P.M.]

Thanks. I spoke at the city council meeting tonight and mentioned this very thing that both the APS and CPUC grandfathered existing agreements out of fairness and not killing ones investment in solar. I also mentioned the APS charged at a rate of $0.70 per system kW for new hookups as the cost of being attached to transmission lines. The APS rate in my case would be $4 a month. Then I pointed out that under the new city DG program my connection costs would be around $58 a month. That was their main argument and $58 is grossly unfair and out of the norm of the other utilities.

I made a request to halt the DG program for existing solar households because it was unfair and plain not right based on the agreements. They laughed when I said they might as well take 7 panels off my house and place them on City Hall. Not sure if it was a good laugh or bad laugh.

Anyway, I was the only one there out of the 13 solar homes but the council agreed to check into the grandfathering for existing solar homes. They were also invited to the solar workshop tomorrow run by the City Electric Director who personally tried to argue points and obviously does not have solar in his best interest.

Trying to get a few of the other 13 solars to jump onboard. We will see how it all goes.

Good luck, seriously. Whether we all agree or not, you're doing what more of us (me included) take for granted and maybe could be doing more of in a free society. FWIW, your actions give me pause for thought and make me a bit embarrassed and ashamed for my laziness and cynicism. Bitching is easy. Getting involved takes a sack.

[jschner]

I would also argue a basic fairness issue for the existing solar customers. The utility has basically screwed them with a bait and switch - especially if the utility actually pushed folks to get solar in the first place. Even in the bitter battles with APS in Arizona last year, there was always going to be grandfathering of existing solar installs. Even APS understood that investing in solar is a long term proposition and that should be considered when any changes to the net metering are proposed.

Thanks. I spoke at the city council meeting tonight and mentioned this very thing that both the APS and CPUC grandfathered existing agreements out of fairness and not killing ones investment in solar. I also mentioned the APS charged at a rate of $0.70 per system kW for new hookups as the cost of being attached to transmission lines. The APS rate in my case would be $4 a month. Then I pointed out that under the new city DG program my connection costs would be around $58 a month. That was their main argument and $58 is grossly unfair and out of the norm of the other utilities.

I made a request to halt the DG program for existing solar households because it was unfair and plain not right based on the agreements. They laughed when I said they might as well take 7 panels off my house and place them on City Hall. Not sure if it was a good laugh or bad laugh.

Anyway, I was the only one there out of the 13 solar homes but the council agreed to check into the grandfathering for existing solar homes. They were also invited to the solar workshop tomorrow run by the City Electric Director who personally tried to argue points and obviously does not have solar in his best interest.

Trying to get a few of the other 13 solars to jump onboard. We will see how it all goes.

[silversaver]

I would also argue a basic fairness issue for the existing solar customers. The utility has basically screwed them with a bait and switch - especially if the utility actually pushed folks to get solar in the first place. Even in the bitter battles with APS in Arizona last year, there was always going to be grandfathering of existing solar installs. Even APS understood that investing in solar is a long term proposition and that should be considered when any changes to the net metering are proposed.

+1. the POCO has basically screwed his solar investment. It is all about fairness. It probably cost him more $$$ to produce each kWh than what he gets credit from POCO.

[Ian S]

Isn't the purpose of California SB1 to help offset peak demand? If it can do it on a large scale, does that not happen on a smaller scale such as the city transmission lines too? I can understand when the solar production surpasses the usage on the transmission lines but, with only 13 PV systems in the whole city electric area of about 2500 homes, it seems to me the 15-20 amps my PV system is generating is being used up with my home and immediate neighbors giving 4kW to 5kW of relief to miles of transmission lines in the city and state. Is that not the case? Serious question - how do you come up with this being a myth? Sure it is minuscule, but isn't that the point of the whole million homes thing that these small systems will add for some amount of peak releif?

The availability of getting into PV in our city was/is really not much different than getting into any of the other rebate programs the city offers everyone. I am not exactly well to do myself and subsidize others through city programs as they received reduced bills along with supporting the public benefit and monthly connection fees. If anything I have become more invisible to the city electric department, not as demanding as other utility customers and that is the rub for them.

Thanks for the feedback but without details of why, I can't readily use it.

What I'm getting at is the the city had reasons to create a website and promote solar in their town the last few years. I'm trying figure out what those reasons were here if we can because they seem to have forgotten those benefits for creating the program in the first place, even though we had a 10 year contract for Net metering and interconnection.

I would also argue a basic fairness issue for the existing solar customers. The utility has basically screwed them with a bait and switch - especially if the utility actually pushed folks to get solar in the first place. Even in the bitter battles with APS in Arizona last year, there was always going to be grandfathering of existing solar installs. Even APS understood that investing in solar is a long term proposition and that should be considered when any changes to the net metering are proposed.

[jschner]

[/LIST]
Both are false statements and myths. You will loose that argument and credibility making those statements.

Isn't the purpose of California SB1 to help offset peak demand? If it can do it on a large scale, does that not happen on a smaller scale such as the city transmission lines too? I can understand when the solar production surpasses the usage on the transmission lines but, with only 13 PV systems in the whole city electric area of about 2500 homes, it seems to me the 15-20 amps my PV system is generating is being used up with my home and immediate neighbors giving 4kW to 5kW of relief to miles of transmission lines in the city and state. Is that not the case? Serious question - how do you come up with this being a myth? Sure it is minuscule, but isn't that the point of the whole million homes thing that these small systems will add for some amount of peak releif?

Valid argument. To pay for the subsidies and losses the utility has to artificially raise electric rates and the city has to raise taxes to pay for it which forces the poor and working class to subsidize you luxury when you can afford it without subsidies.

The availability of getting into PV in our city was/is really not much different than getting into any of the other rebate programs the city offers everyone. I am not exactly well to do myself and subsidize others through city programs as they received reduced bills along with supporting the public benefit and monthly connection fees. If anything I have become more invisible to the city electric department, not as demanding as other utility customers and that is the rub for them.

Thanks for the feedback but without details of why, I can't readily use it.

What I'm getting at is the the city had reasons to create a website and promote solar in their town the last few years. I'm trying figure out what those reasons were here if we can because they seem to have forgotten those benefits for creating the program in the first place, even though we had a 10 year contract for Net metering and interconnection.

[Sunking]

1. Helped the city become more green, solar friendly and reduce CO2 emissions.
2. PV System reduces peak demand on transmission lines lowering maintenance and expansion costs for the city.

Both are false statements and myths. You will loose that argument and credibility making those statements.

They also argue my PV system is subsidized by the "poor" because my home is connected to their transmission lines at night and poor weather and I use the lines during solar production.

Valid argument. To pay for the subsidies and losses the utility has to artificially raise electric rates and the city has to raise taxes to pay for it which forces the poor and working class to subsidize you luxury when you can afford it without subsidies.