Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[Jason]

Last Monday, Oklahoma became the first state to pass a bill charging residential and other solar power users with grid-tied solar and wind power installations a monthly fee. The amount of the fee, yet to be determined, is backed by utility companies, which argue that net metering allows users to ignore the fixed costs of maintaining the power grid, forcing rates to go up for other users. Thinkprogress.org reported that while clean energy advocates had strongly opposed the bill, it was added into the draft bill late in the process, preventing opponents from mobilizing effectively. While Oklahoma was one battleground, other state-level fights are also beginning to occur. The conservative think tank Americans For Prosperity (AFP) has drafted "model legislation" on solar energy. While most of the utilities are themselves not strongly against solar energy, many in the fossil fuel sector are beginning to see it as a real threat and are acting to undermine solar industry growth. With the two-fold goal of rolling back state laws as well as undermining incentives to go solar, these new attacks are the opening salvos of what will likely be a contentious battle over how the solar industry will work. While solar has been largely uncontroversial until now, industry growth has pushed solar energy into the limelight. Battles over state-level solar legislation are the opening salvos in what is likely to be an ongoing question of solar policy for years to come.

More...

[Sunking]

Last Monday, Oklahoma became the first state to pass a bill charging residential and other solar power users with grid-tied solar and wind power installations a monthly fee. The amount of the fee, yet to be determined, is backed by utility companies, which argue that net metering allows users to ignore the fixed costs of maintaining the power grid, forcing rates to go up for other users.

Well DUH!! Every state that has net metering is allowed to jack the rates up on everyone to make up for the losses. It is a hidden tax shielded from the public eye.

[J.P.M.]

Last Monday, Oklahoma became the first state to pass a bill charging residential and other solar power users with grid-tied solar and wind power installations a monthly fee. The amount of the fee, yet to be determined, is backed by utility companies, which argue that net metering allows users to ignore the fixed costs of maintaining the power grid, forcing rates to go up for other users. Thinkprogress.org reported that while clean energy advocates had strongly opposed the bill, it was added into the draft bill late in the process, preventing opponents from mobilizing effectively. While Oklahoma was one battleground, other state-level fights are also beginning to occur. The conservative think tank Americans For Prosperity (AFP) has drafted "model legislation" on solar energy. While most of the utilities are themselves not strongly against solar energy, many in the fossil fuel sector are beginning to see it as a real threat and are acting to undermine solar industry growth. With the two-fold goal of rolling back state laws as well as undermining incentives to go solar, these new attacks are the opening salvos of what will likely be a contentious battle over how the solar industry will work. While solar has been largely uncontroversial until now, industry growth has pushed solar energy into the limelight. Battles over state-level solar legislation are the opening salvos in what is likely to be an ongoing question of solar policy for years to come.

More...

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.

[Ian S]

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.

Arizona also instituted a monthly fee that took effect in January. However, it was only for new residential solar customers. Commercial solar customers were unaffected and perhaps therein lies the difference: OK's fee appears to apply to all solar customers.

[gregvet]

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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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. .

[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............

[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?

[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.