# How does it make you feel when...



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 2, 2017)

you learn that utility companies are spending your money to lobby against solar power?

https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-politics/might-paying-utility-company-fight-solar/


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 2, 2017)

I bought the product they produce.  It's not my money anymore.

I'll also add that I willingly purchased it.

I would suggest to anybody that they cut down on their electrical consumption.  It'll leave them more money to do what they want.  It is a sore spot for me when somebody else thinks they can better allocate money that I worked for better than I can.

I'm sure you feel that you are the best person to allocate the money you worked for.  I bet the electric company feels the same way.  The only way to change the way they feel is to let your dollars do the talking.  Use less electricity or go off the grid and give the utility company the finger.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 3, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I bought the product they produce.  It's not my money anymore.
> 
> I'll also add that I willingly purchased it.
> 
> ...



Are you aware that some municipalities REQUIRE you to have electricity and pay the monthly service fee? Or they will declare your house uninhabitable and evict you from your own house.

Most electric companies are government regulated monopolies. In each area they operate in they are granted exclusive rights to sell electricity. In other words, there is no competition and no choice of providers. One company owns the delivery system.  So it really chaps me when they take money collected from rate payers and use it to lobby against rate payers. And against reducing carbon emissions. Only so they can reduce future choice, slow the adoption of solar and increase their profits that come right out of rate payers pockets.

I'm surprised you don't find that troubling.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 3, 2017)

Are you in one of those municipalities?  I'm not.  I know a couple off grid homes.

I did hear of one of those years ago, in Florida, I believe.   I'm not sure how the issue turned out.  I don't watch TV, so I miss the nightly news.

Are you suggesting a business shouldn't be able to advocate for its own interests?


----------



## jharkin (Aug 3, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Are you suggesting a business shouldn't be able to advocate for its own interests?



Its not that simple. Electric providers are _regulated public utilites_. They operate under stricter rules than your average mom and pop LLc or fortune 500 Corp because they provide a service that society has deemed necessary to all.   Most of us _cannot_ simply chose to buy an alternative or go without like we could for entertainment, transport, or some other service.


Where I live we went through utility deregulation.  In practice what that means is that the distribution system is still a monopoly divided up between Eversource and National Grid; the only option you have is to choose an alternative generation source.   I do have an alternative supplier and it saves me a whopping 5% or so 


To Woody's question... I'm not surprised in the slightest.  Dissapointed. But not surprised.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 3, 2017)

It makes me **yawn**. I think the utility lobbying budget from their regulated profits is small pool.  You can call your congresscritters for free.

The bigger problem is that Big Money Fossil Fuel interests (Kochs, Buffet, etc) are funding campaigns for specific candidates for their interests, and statewide anti-solar referenda (backed by massive public mis-information advertising).  THOSE are sometimes getting solar net metering repealed.  In Florida the anti-solar referendum failed.  In Nevada, they succeeded a couple years ago (corresponding to the 'top' in Solar City finances), but recently there was a grassroots backlash, and now net-metering is BACK in Nevada and the people are much better educated re solar's benefits.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 3, 2017)

jharkin said:


> Its not that simple. Electric providers are _regulated public utilites_. They operate under stricter rules than your average mom and pop LLc or fortune 500 Corp because they provide a service that society has deemed necessary to all.   Most of us _cannot_ simply chose to buy an alternative or go without like we could for entertainment, transport, or some other service.
> 
> 
> .




I still don't see where they shouldn't have a voice in what happens in their industry.

Right now they are being forced to buy something they don't want to, for a much higher price than they could get from other sources.  And this is OK to you guys?  


Hey, I've got this factory that makes pink flamingos.   I really need to get rid of my excess production.  I'm going to need you to buy them from me, for $20 each.

You say,  "That's OK, I have enough pink flamingos on my lawn.  Besides, Amazon has them for $5.99 and I can get free shipping. I'm not sure I can even sell them for $20."

Yeah, about that...  I've been lobbying the state legislature and we're going to force you to buy those pink flamingos.

You:  "but I don't need any more pink flamingos!"

That's too bad.  And if you try to get the laws changed with proceeds obtained from selling those pink flamingos I forced you to buy I'm going to be mad.


What am I missing here?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 3, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> What am I missing here?



It looks like you're missing a number of things. The most glaring is that pink flamingos are available on the open market, electricity is provided through a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly.

They should not use funds collected from rate payers to lobby against solar power and then write off those lobbying expenses against their declared profits. Because rate payers interests are often diametrically opposed to utility interests. Keep in mind that the profit % allowed by regulators is a percentage of their expenses. So the more electricity costs them, the more they make. And the more they spend on lobbying that is written off as a business expense, the more they are allowed to charge for electricity. So it's a win/win for the utility and a lose/lose for the customer. And a lose for anyone who is harmed by global warming. 

I hope I don't need to break it down further than that.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 3, 2017)

Re pink flamingos.  "What am I missing here"

A reference to Jonathan Waters and Mz Devine....


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 4, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> It looks like you're missing a number of things. The most glaring is that pink flamingos are available on the open market, electricity is provided through a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly.
> 
> They should not use funds collected from rate payers to lobby against solar power and then write off those lobbying expenses against their declared profits. Because rate payers interests are often diametrically opposed to utility interests. Keep in mind that the profit % allowed by regulators is a percentage of their expenses. So the more electricity costs them, the more they make. And the more they spend on lobbying that is written off as a business expense, the more they are allowed to charge for electricity. So it's a win/win for the utility and a lose/lose for the customer. And a lose for anyone who is harmed by global warming.
> 
> I hope I don't need to break it down further than that.




Go right ahead.  Try to explain it from a capitalist perspective.   We'll both learn something.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 4, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I still don't see where they shouldn't have a voice in what happens in their industry.
> 
> Right now they are being forced to buy something they don't want to, for a much higher price than they could get from other sources.  And this is OK to you guys?
> 
> ...



The thing is, they are buying the PV kWh from you at retail, and selling it to your neighbor at the same retail rate, and the wire connecting you to your next door neighbor is pretty cheap, doesn't suffer any wear and tear on the transaction, and is likely amortized already.  Then later at night, you buy actual kWhs they made, from the grid at what would normally be the retail rate, but rather than you paying, they apply the equivalent funds (to the penny) that they collected from your neighbor the day or month before.

In other words, the utility is selling you and your neighbors pink flamingos at an already agreed upon rate.  You are making a couple flamingos in your basement, shuffling some flamingos between your and your neighbor's lawns, and everyone is still paying the exact same price per flamingo that the utility set with a public committee.  The net effect is that you made and sold two flamingoes (with your capital), and the utility sold two fewer.

Does reduced sales (or sales growth) affect the utility's business....of course it does. The solar comes in (for now) at peak demand periods....in summer and daytime. If they have to BUY power in sunny peak periods from other generators at above their retail rate...they make money on the deal.  If they own peaker plants and SELL power to other utilities at above retail during peaks...you cut their profits.

But at the same time, you are making their jobs a little easier by solving a problem for the utility....you are reducing their need to expand their peak grid capacity and generation, which is very capital intensive...and shaving their peaks.  So, its really about how they ran their business in the recent past, re projected growth.

--If people told them a decade ago solar flamingo factories would never work, and flamingo demand was going to go up 3% a year, and they built a huge new flamingo factory with borrowed money, now they look like idiots and are losing money on their investment (passed onto the consumer through higher rates).  In this case the lower demand is mostly due to efficiency improvements, with only a little from solar piling on...but they are easy to blame.  And if your blame and lobbying can pass an anti-bespoke flamingo law it can remove a future threat....maybe your demand can grow enough in the next ten years to recoup your mal-investment without an embarrassing rate increase!

--In a second area, the utility decided that it would undertake enough efficiency programs (at their cost, passed on to the consumer through things like MassSaves) to shave growth in total and peak demand to AVOID or reduce a large capital investment in new flamingo factories.  Since flamingo  demand has actually been pretty flat for the last ten years, these guys are not sitting on a pile of debt and mal-investments.  In this situation, your solar flamingo factory looks like a free efficiency program.  They currently have chosen to PAY to reduce total demand and especially peak demand, and you are helping them do that FOR FREE.  So they don't have to charge customers so much to pay for demand reduction strategies!

PV net metering is small pool in most of the areas debating net metering.  Whether you like it or not depends on how well you the utility forecast your demand growth in the last decade.  If you overforecast, (easy since growth has been flat), you are hoping to sell excess power at peak rates to your neighbors, and PV looks like a threat.  If you underforecast you are afraid you will have to buy expensive power from neighboring generators with excess, and PV looks like a godsend.

At the national level...PV avoids peak rate profiteering by one generator over another, reducing consumer costs, and displaces other expensive demand reduction program costs, also reducing costs.  IOW, solar net metering reduces consumer costs overall, which has been confirmed by many studies.  While this also happens to reduce utility revenue, whether it reduces utility profits depends on how well they are running their business (if they accurately forecast demand taking PV into account....it is neutral).

Other than that....I agree with you Matt.  If the public commission allows them to pay into a lobbying fund from their operating budget...of course they can do so.  If someone doesn't like it...they should lobby the commission to disallow the practice.

In reality, PV is so small almost everywhere (<1%) that it is a rounding error on most of these company budgets.  The lobbying is all about future projections that are scary to some utility business models.  And it is true that once solar gets to 10-15% energy (an order of magnitude larger than currently) the rosy picture above gets more complicated and adding more solar at that point might require other expensive engineering solutions.  This is where it gets even more complicated.  If PV is stupid cheap, then why should the utility let you make money from it?  They should build a solar plant, make power at less than retail and sell it to you at retail....at least up to 10-15% total solar.  In the (scary) future, if homeowners own all that PV, the engineering solutions might be limited/costly (like litigating net-metering rules).  If you the utility own the PV, solutions might be easier (like installing cheap grid storage that will become available then, or simply curtailing PV overproduction, which you can do if you own it).


----------



## jharkin (Aug 4, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Go right ahead.  Try to explain it from a capitalist perspective.   We'll both learn something.



There is more to life than the never ending pursuit of more money.

Things like, you know, breathing?


That pot of gold wont help much when half the earth is uninhabitable  from climate change and coal dust.



I'm a little grumpy this morning again, I just got around to watching that NatGeo special "From the Ashes".... rrrrr.....


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 4, 2017)

As much as I wish it weren't so, the management of the utility companies have not been charged in any way with solving AGW. 

They have been charged with the responsibility of keeping the lights on, making reasonable capital investments as necessary to do that, while otherwise minimizing operating costs, with their finances disclosed to a public committee.  They are then allowed to make a modest profit on that activity, which mostly goes to pay off their shareholders, which are proverbial little old ladies who like low-risk, modest return investments, often paying a predictable dividend they can use to buy groceries and sleep well at night.

The states have decided to incentivize solar through net metering rules, and the feds through tax rebates, for a clear societal benefit.  Overall, the US incentive is much less generous than those tried previously in Japan and later Germany, with the result that our adoption of solar has far lagged those two countries.  BUT, the incentive in the US has the advantage of being more financially sustainable to higher PV penetration...US solar levels are catching up rapidly with those other countries, whose PV rollout stalled years ago (and it is now hard for them to reduce their incentives with entrenched PV owners).


----------



## jharkin (Aug 4, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> As much as I wish it weren't so, the management of the utility companies have not been charged in any way with solving AGW.



I didnt claim they where.  I was just challengeing the notion that finaical measures are the only thing that matters in any and all decisions.

If I made every decision  based on finance alone I would have made very different choices over the years, and would have lived a far less fulfilling and enjoyable life because of it.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 4, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> As much as I wish it weren't so, the management of the utility companies have not been charged in any way with solving AGW.



Since the generation of electricity is one of the primary causes of AGW, wouldn't it make sense for the costs of mitigating AGW to be built into the cost of electricity? I would say it's pretty obvious electric utilities have been charged with helping to lessen AGW. 

Electric utilities are granted a monopoly. In return for that privilege, they agree to be regulated for the common good.

Unfortunately, the "common good" is a concept that is foreign to some people who pride themselves on being free market capitalists. Or, you can take it one step farther, as Ayn Rand did, and develop twisted theories that pretend your contribution to society is, by definition, exactly equal to how much money you have made.  

Young republicans who have been seduced by Ayn Rand's twisted theories would do well to learn a little history of her failed theories:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...hat-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/


----------



## RobbieB (Aug 4, 2017)

I have no problem with Utilities advocating for themselves.  That article was written by a solar Co.  Guess what their agenda is?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 4, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> I have no problem with Utilities advocating for themselves.



Me neither. As long as they don't expense their lobbying as a cost of doing business (which allows them to jack their rates up).




> That article was written by a solar Co.  Guess what their agenda is?



Ummm, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hopefully make a profit. Thing is, we haven't granted any one solar company an exclusive monopoly to serve my residence.


----------



## RobbieB (Aug 4, 2017)

If they don't make a profit they're done.  Which screws all the people that have open orders as well as their creditors.  I imagine they told their bank they were into saving the earth first and making money last when they applied for their loan.

I especially liked the reference to selling "excess power".  It's never a good idea to oversize a residential solar system.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 4, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> If they don't make a profit they're done.  Which screws all the people that have open orders as well as their creditors.  I imagine they told their bank they were into saving the earth first and making money last when they applied for their loan.



If you're talking about electric utilities, as regulated monopolies, they are pretty much guaranteed a profit. If you're talking about solar installation companies, yes, they only survive if they make a profit. And they should be able to lobby congress under existing lobbying laws. Because they were not granted a monopoly. I'm amazed at the number of people who appear to be unfamiliar with the functional differences between a government granted monopoly and a free enterprise business.



> I especially liked the reference to selling "excess power".  It's never a good idea to oversize a residential solar system.



What? It's normal for residential solar system to produce more than the residence needs during periods of full sun. That's why they are engineered to back feed surplus electricity back into the grid. This reduces the load on the grid.


----------



## RobbieB (Aug 5, 2017)

I use more than I generate, so I pay for the over.  I'll pay about $150 for the juice I use during the whole year.  They credit me for my excess during the day and I suck it all back (and then some) during the night.  The "net result" is I'll pay about 15 cents a kWh and avoid the "over tier" price of 35 cents per.  If I generate more than I use they pay me.  But I lose the $10/mo "grid connect" charge and they pay me the wholesale rate of 3 cents/kWh.  

It doesn't make economic sense to generate more than you use.  You lose the connect credit and you get the wholesale rate.  Not to mention you cost the utility big bucks to write all those checks for not much dough.  It just makes them mad.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 5, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Since the generation of electricity is one of the primary causes of AGW, wouldn't it make sense for the costs of mitigating AGW to be built into the cost of electricity? I would say it's pretty obvious electric utilities have been charged with helping to lessen AGW.
> 
> Electric utilities are granted a monopoly. In return for that privilege, they agree to be regulated for the common good.



Yes, that would make sense (aka a carbon tax or trading system), but my point was that that isn't the law right now, and the management of the utility cannot in practice just decide to include such a tax on their own.  We are free to take action against AGW in our personal lives, but can't really do that in our jobs, usually.

The kid at the local gas station decides to only pump E85 into people's cars?  The electrician decides to only work on houses where they buy 100% green electricity?  Your doctor asks about your carbon footprint and charges you proportionally?  The butcher decides to add a carbon surcharge to each cut of meat he sells depending on its carbon footprint per pound?

One utility deciding to effectively charge a carbon tax unilaterally makes about as much sense as the above examples.

That's not how the system works, even when it works.



WoodyIsGoody said:


> Unfortunately, the "common good" is a concept that is foreign to some people who pride themselves on being free market capitalists. Or, you can take it one step farther, as Ayn Rand did, and develop twisted theories that pretend your contribution to society is, by definition, exactly equal to how much money you have made.
> 
> Young republicans who have been seduced by Ayn Rand's twisted theories would do well to learn a little history of her failed theories:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...hat-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/



Whoa Nelly.  I like a good non sequitur as much as the next guy...but I don't need to be convinced about the loony Randians (apologies to any Randians on the board ).

I am up to speed on the need for *regulated capitalism *and good *public policy*.  The solutions to AGW will certainly come from *capitalism* (which will develop and especially deploy new low carbon technology, seeking a profit by doing so) along with *regulation* (which will make the existing business as usual approach less appealling, by for instance charging for externalities, while incentivizing the new low carbon one, with public funds), speeding the rollout of the new tech.  There will also be a lot of *public policy*, separate from regulation or capitalism, but likely publicly funded in education, advocacy, international treaties and, um, even macroeconomic planning.

There, I said it.  

In the current US political environment, there is plenty of moronicity to go around.  My least favorite thing is to just make something you don't agree with into a 'bad word', so the other side can't even open their mouths without everyone getting the vapors.

Words like: 'liberal', 'feminism', 'tax', 'regulation', 'redistribution', 'social justice', 'single payer', 'racism', 'climate change', 'sea level', 'marxism', 'socialist', 'denier' have all been made into charged code words, banned from polite discourse and/or had their meanings endlessly twisted.  Look at out recent dispute in another thread about the meaning of 'conservative' and 'conservsationist'....ugh.

Durable AGW solutions will IMHO require us to use all the political and policy arrows in the quiver (including taxes, regulations, social justice, international treaties and redistribution).  Either side shutting down discourse as soon as someone says a word they have capriciously decided is not allowed is a juvenile (but sadly effective) tactic to stall progress.

That's my non sequitur.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 5, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> I use more than I generate, so I pay for the over.  I'll pay about $150 for the juice I use during the whole year.  They credit me for my excess during the day and I suck it all back (and then some) during the night.  The "net result" is I'll pay about 15 cents a kWh and avoid the "over tier" price of 35 cents per.  If I generate more than I use they pay me.  But I lose the $10/mo "grid connect" charge and they pay me the wholesale rate of 3 cents/kWh.
> 
> It doesn't make economic sense to generate more than you use.  You lose the connect credit and you get the wholesale rate.  Not to mention you cost the utility big bucks to write all those checks for not much dough.  It just makes them mad.




Hmm seems like you got a raw deal. Here in MA they net meter and my buddy with a big solar install gets credited all his overage at the full retail rate (close to 20 cents). They won't pay it out but it keeps rolling forward on his bill, so he can "cash in" all the summer excess production during winter, so to speak.  I think the only way to loose out is if he goes net negative for the entire year.

And then there are the SREC incentives on top of that, which pays up to another 0.27 a solar kWh. Thats being replaced next year with a less generous incentive, but folks that got in are grandfathered for 10 years.  So even net negative annual use is positive financially for the first 10 years..


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 5, 2017)

Woodgeek, good comments and well written and I agree with everything except what I took exception with to begin with as commented below. My sincerest apologies if it appeared I was accusing you of thinking Ayn Rand's theories/world view were relevant or valid.


woodgeek said:


> Yes, that would make sense (aka a carbon tax or trading system), but my point was that that isn't the law right now, and the management of the utility cannot in practice just decide to include such a tax on their own.


Every monopoly granted to an electric utility in the form of a contract has rights and responsibilities required of it by government and these terms are not codified in law but that is only a technicality (because contract law supports these contracts). In addition to contract law, all states have laws regulating utilities. And many of these laws do have specific clauses that require electric utilities to do certain things, some of which are for the sole purpose of encouraging the adoption of solar and/or reduction in CO2. Electric utilities may not be charged with "solving AGW" but, between these two things (laws and contracts), it's pretty obvious that electrical utilities have been mandated to play an active role in encouraging the reduction of CO2 to help mitigate AGW. The free or low cost LED bulbs they offer is one example. Other examples are net metering, residential energy/insulation/weather sealing appraisals and rebates on energy efficient appliances. These programs are in the public good and in our national interest but they run counter to the profit motive of electric utilities. They would not do them unless mandated.

So, yes, electric utilities are required to help mitigate AWG.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 5, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> .....I especially liked the reference to selling "excess power".  It's never a good idea to oversize a residential solar system.


Unless,of course, you get to sell RECS at a handsome price


----------



## RobbieB (Aug 5, 2017)

I do get the full retail rate as long as I don't generate more than I use for the whole year.  They have to credit you at the same rate they charge you.

But that all changes if you go net negative.  Once your annual "true up" bill goes to zero, you get the wholesale rate.  And before that happens you start eating into your connect fee credit.  At the end of the year you want to owe the utility at least $120 (10 bucks a month) so you get the full credit.

Ex; my "true up" bill is $200.  I send in eighty bucks 200-120  
Ex; my true up bill is $50.  I don't send in anything, but I lost $70 worth of "free juice"
Ex my true up bill is negative.  I don't have a charge, neither did I get $120 of free juice and the utility pays me 3 cents a unit.

So here at least you always want to owe them more than $120 at the end of the year.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 5, 2017)

If the power companies were required to have a certain percentage of power come from renewable nonpolluting sources ,much like the auto companies have compliance cars , they would be looking for home grown power to partner up with rather than seeing the off gridder,solar crowd as their competition.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2017)

There are locations in the US where geothermal makes good sense. WA state, Idaho and Montana currently have none in spite of having good geothermal resources. In contrast, California has 2,732 MW geothermal power generation.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 5, 2017)

begreen said:


> There are locations in the US where geothermal makes good sense. WA state, Idaho and Montana currently have none in spite of having good geothermal resources. In contrast, California has 2,732 MW geothermal power generation.


That would be thinking ahead BG ,something that is hard to get the ruling class on board with.  Iv often wondered if the heat from  the giant yellowstone caldera could be siphoned  off to make power ,may just be enough to prevent the next  eruption indefinitely, if it don trigger one by tapping into it.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 5, 2017)

RobbieB said:


> I do get the full retail rate as long as I don't generate more than I use for the whole year.  They have to credit you at the same rate they charge you.
> 
> But that all changes if you go net negative.  .....
> 
> So here at least you always want to owe them more than $120 at the end of the year.




In addition to net metering, which you describe, a REC gets you paid for the act of creating solar power. Up here in Massachusetts you get 1 REC per 1000 kWh.. The price you get per REC has varied from ~$220 to ~$440 per REC over the past 4 years ( you use a broker who aggregates them, and then sells them, taking his cut, and giving you the rest)


Think of it as double dipping


So, here, at least, overproduction pays well


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 5, 2017)

begreen said:


> There are locations in the US where geothermal makes good sense. WA state, Idaho and Montana currently have none in spite of having good geothermal resources. In contrast, California has 2,732 MW geothermal power generation.



I remember reading in 2014 that the USFS under the Obama administration, was preparing to open the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest for geothermal exploration and lease proposals.

Although the Cascade range runs from Mt. Lassen in N. CA all the way to the Canadian border, it is estimated that only 5% of it's geothermal potential lies north of the OR/WA border.


----------

