Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[Sunking]

Now, I follow your point. Re. your first paragraph, CA installed a net 19 GW of capacity from 2001 to 2012. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/...d_capacity.pdf So, to state that going green has cut capacity is factually incorrect.

No it is not. From your own link in 2002 CA generated 209,685 Gwh in State, Imported 62,859 Gwh for a total use of 272.544 Gwh. In 2002 CA imported 23% of their electricity.

In 2012 CA Generated 199,101 Gwh (-10,584), Imported 102,866 Gwh (40,007) for a total use of 301,967 Gwh (29,423) In 2012 CA imported 34% (67% increase of imports)of their electricity.

Those are the facts from your own link. In 10 short years CA base capacity has shrunk 6% and use has increased 10% . CA is loosing capacity, not gaining as you are trying to imply. CA energy policy is failing period.

[Ian S]

CA installed a net 19 GW of capacity from 2001 to 2012. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/...d_capacity.pdf So, to state that going green has cut capacity is factually incorrect.

FACTS?!!! We don't need no steenkin' facts!

[JCP]

The issue is BASE LOAD and solar contributes nothing to Base Load. On average around the country Base Load is at low 90% of capacity. In many states like California cannot even meet Base Loads and have to import 30% of their electricity from neighboring states. Twenty years ago when CA dicided to go green they only imported 10% of their energy. Today just over 30%. Solar has done nothing except raise CA energy prices and cut capacity. They are going backwards.

March 2015 DOE raised Red Flags with Congress and POTUS Obama stating Electric Energy needs is at a crisis point in desire need of conventional power plant construction. They stated RE i snot working plain and Simple. US has roughly 50 years of proven reserves of cheap natural gas,, 250 years of coal. and 10 million years of dirt cheap nuclear energy. There is only one good answer. In the short term build out NG/Coal plants, and long term nuclear.

If you have ever heard of the Smart Grid you might like to know what it is and means. It works a bit like cellular telephone by putting small passive nuclear plants in a grid like fashion in a city or region that can fit in a typical house basement. If one plant has to shut down for maintenance of low demand, the surrounding plants pick up the slack. It also entails looking right into your home energy uses to allow big brother to turn on/off high wattage devices like you air conditioning. If you have a new Smart Meter at your home now, that capability is already there. Smart Meters eliminate a lot of things like Meter Readers or calling to report power outages and/or problems. My home in TX before I left had a Smart Meter and I got an email every day on usage and patterns.

That is what is coming. That is what every utility, engineer, technician and politician knows. All you have now is just politics kicking the can down the road and no politician willing to tell the truth in fear of loosing a election. Politicians would rather see Black Outs and sky high rates before telling the truth risking loosing office. Remember Obama pledged in his 2008 campaign to punish Americans with sky rocketing electric energy bills. He kept his promise.

Now, I follow your point. Re. your first paragraph, CA installed a net 19 GW of capacity from 2001 to 2012. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/...d_capacity.pdf So, to state that going green has cut capacity is factually incorrect. Energy consumption per capita in CA has slightly decreased from 1990 to 2010 while it increased for the rest of the country by about 12%. Meanwhile, CA population increased by about a quarter. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric...1990-2010.html As for the importation of electricity from the northwest (mostly hydro if I undertand correctly) and from the southwest, I really don't see the problem. It's probably cheaper to stick a gas fired power plant in AZ.

While nuclear power has lots of upside, we have apparently only 80 years of proven reserves as of today: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...ly-of-Uranium/ and that's based on today's consumption. Or maybe 230 years. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...deposits-last/ Or maybe 60,000 years if we can extract it economically from sea water, which apparently would be quite daunting as of today (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...l-from-the-sea). Of course, then there is that whole thing about having a bunch of nuclear reactor alongside the San Andreas fault...

So, the fact is that there aren't any silver bullets out there. While CA approach is not perfect, it had at least the merit of emphasizing the need for conservation, although probably not enough.

[+3 Golfer]

At the same time, solar power adds power at the time of most consumption, lowering the need for peak time power plants, which are also the most expensive to run. This debate is going to go on for a while, and will only intensify as the number of solar arrays goes up.

Yes, very good point.

You want to rethink that. It generally adds significantly more power on shoulder hours and Saturdays and Sundays.

http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualCurrentDay.html

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html#SupplyandDemand

[Sunking]

If your answer is that long term, we need to build more gas powered plants, it seems that we'll have a problem in a couple hundred years. Frankly, your answer is a bit of a rant and does not really explain your position. Could you articulate your position?

The issue is BASE LOAD and solar contributes nothing to Base Load. On average around the country Base Load is at low 90% of capacity. In many states like California cannot even meet Base Loads and have to import 30% of their electricity from neighboring states. Twenty years ago when CA dicided to go green they only imported 10% of their energy. Today just over 30%. Solar has done nothing except raise CA energy prices and cut capacity. They are going backwards.

March 2015 DOE raised Red Flags with Congress and POTUS Obama stating Electric Energy needs is at a crisis point in desire need of conventional power plant construction. They stated RE i snot working plain and Simple. US has roughly 50 years of proven reserves of cheap natural gas,, 250 years of coal. and 10 million years of dirt cheap nuclear energy. There is only one good answer. In the short term build out NG/Coal plants, and long term nuclear.

If you have ever heard of the Smart Grid you might like to know what it is and means. It works a bit like cellular telephone by putting small passive nuclear plants in a grid like fashion in a city or region that can fit in a typical house basement. If one plant has to shut down for maintenance of low demand, the surrounding plants pick up the slack. It also entails looking right into your home energy uses to allow big brother to turn on/off high wattage devices like you air conditioning. If you have a new Smart Meter at your home now, that capability is already there. Smart Meters eliminate a lot of things like Meter Readers or calling to report power outages and/or problems. My home in TX before I left had a Smart Meter and I got an email every day on usage and patterns.

That is what is coming. That is what every utility, engineer, technician and politician knows. All you have now is just politics kicking the can down the road and no politician willing to tell the truth in fear of loosing a election. Politicians would rather see Black Outs and sky high rates before telling the truth risking loosing office. Remember Obama pledged in his 2008 campaign to punish Americans with sky rocketing electric energy bills. He kept his promise.

[pleppik]

If your answer is that long term, we need to build more gas powered plants, it seems that we'll have a problem in a couple hundred years. Frankly, your answer is a bit of a rant and does not really explain your position. Could you articulate your position?

Less than a couple hundred years, I would wager. Not because we'll run out but because it will get so expensive to recover what's left that it won't be economical.

[JCP]

All it does is Kick The Can Down The Road until the next election cycle. The only solution for long term is conventional power. Utilities know this very well and are just waiting for the shoe to drop. In the mean time they just wait and continue to pay stock holders nice dividends. When the time comes they will come to you for the money to build. The public is IGNORANT and UNEDUCATED. Most US citizens cannot pass a simple physics or math test. The US public is extremely easy to dupe. Reminds me of Silence of the Lambs. Being led to slaughter, and you like it. .

If your answer is that long term, we need to build more gas powered plants, it seems that we'll have a problem in a couple hundred years. Frankly, your answer is a bit of a rant and does not really explain your position. Could you articulate your position?

[Shockah]

All it does is Kick The Can Down The Road until the next election cycle. The only solution for long term is conventional power. Utilities know this very well and are just waiting for the shoe to drop. In the mean time they just wait and continue to pay stock holders nice dividends. When the time comes they will come to you for the money to build. The public is IGNORANT and UNEDUCATED. Most US citizens cannot pass a simple physics or math test. The US public is extremely easy to dupe. Reminds me of Silence of the Lambs. Being led to slaughter, and you like it. .

Another reality-check, courtesy of Sunking.

I support any necessary fee to Grid-Tied PV users that offsets future rate increases to non-GT PV users.

You got the rebates and tax credits...
time to start paying your fair share of the utility's burden caused by it,,,
instead of wanting those who do not have PV to suffer increases.

Only in America............

[Sunking]

At the same time, solar power adds power at the time of most consumption, lowering the need for peak time power plants, which are also the most expensive to run.

All it does is Kick The Can Down The Road until the next election cycle. The only solution for long term is conventional power. Utilities know this very well and are just waiting for the shoe to drop. In the mean time they just wait and continue to pay stock holders nice dividends. When the time comes they will come to you for the money to build. The public is IGNORANT and UNEDUCATED. Most US citizens cannot pass a simple physics or math test. The US public is extremely easy to dupe. Reminds me of Silence of the Lambs. Being led to slaughter, and you like it. .

[TxSolarPro]

At the same time, solar power adds power at the time of most consumption, lowering the need for peak time power plants, which are also the most expensive to run. This debate is going to go on for a while, and will only intensify as the number of solar arrays goes up.

Yes, very good point.

[JCP]

I agree as well. What many people fail to realize is that most grid-tie solar setups are using the grid instead of batteries for storage. Why should we all expect to use the grid for free storage? That being said, I believe the fees should be small as these systems are not adding very much at all into the grid comparatively.

At the same time, solar power adds power at the time of most consumption, lowering the need for peak time power plants, which are also the most expensive to run. This debate is going to go on for a while, and will only intensify as the number of solar arrays goes up.

[TxSolarPro]

100% agreed - should not be a free ride but no reason for it to be a big deal either.

I agree as well. What many people fail to realize is that most grid-tie solar setups are using the grid instead of batteries for storage. Why should we all expect to use the grid for free storage? That being said, I believe the fees should be small as these systems are not adding very much at all into the grid comparatively.

[Jason]

"I question the correctness of the first sentence above. I think AB 327 in CA allows a monthly charge to be added to residential bills. That was signed into law before the OK legislation."

Thank you for the correction. California AB 327 was revised several times prior to passage, however the bill eventually ended up authorizing up to a $10 monthly fee for residential solar users. Arizona also passed a $5/month fee last year. While these fees are an extra cost for solar users at any level, the Oklahoma bill was the first to leave things much more open-ended for the utilities, which means between $30-60 per month. Basically, the Oklahoma bill as passed allows the utilities a lot more scope to charge a much larger monthly amount. The correction has been made on the original article.

[russ]

I'm not opposed to a fee everyone pays. I also think a solar fee based on how much energy you store on the grid each month would be reasonable as long as residential solar is kept viable and encouraged.

100% agreed - should not be a free ride but no reason for it to be a big deal either.

[Ian S]

In our county in Colorado, our electric has always assessed a monthly service charge regardless of whether you have a GT renewable energy source or not. This fee is same as anyone who has electrical service from our co-op. Even in months if you generate enough to offset your kWh consumed, you still have to pay this monthly fee (about $1.00/day)

Actually APS in Arizona also has a charge that everyone pays and it works out to about $18.00/mo for someone on a T.O.U. plan; less for someone on the standard plan. What was instituted in January was a fee just for new solar customers, no one else pays it. I'm not opposed to a fee everyone pays. I also think a solar fee based on how much energy you store on the grid each month would be reasonable as long as residential solar is kept viable and encouraged.