# AZ regulators adopt $5 a month Solar Fee



## MishMouse (Nov 15, 2013)

I do not know where I can post this, so I will post it here since it directly effects green technology.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-regulators-adopt-5-monthly-solar-fee-022306910--finance.html



> Arizona regulators on Thursday voted to adopt a roughly $5 monthly fee for customers of the state's largest utility who install rooftop solar panels in a move that had the solar industry declaring victory over what it saw as an effort to topple its business.
> . . .
> According to the story Arizona Public Service sought a monthly rate increase for solar customers of $50 to $100.
> ...
> Under the current system, homeowners with solar panels are able to cut their bills by selling excess power at full retail price back to APS in a practice called "net metering." Combined with using the power from the panels themselves, net metering can cut customer bills by about two-thirds.


 
So is this the future of the green industry?
Regulators adding fees so that the electric companies can make up their lost revenue.
Yes right now it is only $5, but that sure doesn't mean that it is going to stay that way, all the AZ Public Services need to do is get the regulators in their back pocket and the fee will skyrocket.
What will happen if other states adopt the same policy?

I thought that the government supported green technology and the reduction of green house gasses?
I do not think this was a victory for the Solar Industry, yes they got the fees reduced, but no where in the story did it say that those $5 fees are not going to change in the future.

In my opinion this sets a precedent that going green can be regulated by fees.


----------



## Jags (Nov 15, 2013)

I understand your concerns - and now at $5.00 it is no big deal.  On the flip side - you are using "their" wires.  They can't be maintained for free, but I would think that the "connection" charge on most bills would cover that.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 15, 2013)

We may be using "their" wires, but we also are saving them money by distributed generation at peak times, reducing their need to add peak power; also reducing their need to build additional power plants; also reducing their need to beef up their distribution lines. Big Power is scared stiff, it sees the end game, and it is not pretty for fossil fuel electric generation. This is about killing green power and ensuring the continued stuffing of profits in the pockets of Big Power, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Natural Gas, etc.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 15, 2013)

It's not scared stiff.  All they need to do is lobby for subsidies to be decreased.  If Govco wasn't paying people to go Solar many of the panels would not be installed.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 15, 2013)

Surely you jest. The oil industry has been the benefactor of some of the largest and continuing subsidies, incentives, and tax breaks of any industry, and it has no reason to cry foul over subsidies, incentives and tax breaks to other energy producers, especially those that don't poison the world in which we live.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 15, 2013)

Do you feel that it matters to them that they are receiving subsidies too?  The economy would tank without oil.  Not so with the solar industry.  In fact, the solar industry would tank without the products and energy that oil provides.  

I have nothing against solar.  I just don't think they are as scared as you think they are.  

Matt


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 16, 2013)

There are many 'they's.  The coal industry is struggling in many ways, and could (easily) cease to exist in the next 10-20 years.  The gas industry is struggling to develop new supplies, deal with anti-frackers, etc but have guaranteed customers as a bridge fuel for decades.  The oil cos are fat and happy.  Their volumes might be flat or falling, but relative to the prices in the 90s, they have a great business model.

For the elec utils, its a highly regulated business that is currently living in 'interesting times'.  Solar is not an imminent threat to provide 100% distributed local supply, but does significantly alter their operational modes by peak trimming, which can hurt the profits of some suppliers (with a lot of peaker capacity).  I think they are scared, not of solar per se, but of how to navigate their existing generation fleet (with enormous sunk costs and carbon liabilites) to a new fleet, while surviving on very thin (and regulated) margins.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Nov 16, 2013)

Big power generation is not scared of solar…they just have not found a way to successfully integrate solar….yet. Currently it creates more problems than it solves. Like so many other areas this one requires some tech leaps to make it viable. Until then we burn fossil like it or not & "they" all know it.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 16, 2013)

> ... is not scared of solar…they just have not found a way to successfully integrate solar….


I read this to mean Big Power has not yet found a way to control and monopolize solar for its profit and to mean not yet found a way to profit from distributed generation.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 16, 2013)

Would you be against Big Power getting into solar?


----------



## Where2 (Nov 16, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> I think they are scared, not of solar per se, but of how to navigate their existing generation fleet (with enormous sunk costs and carbon liabilites) to a new fleet, while surviving on very thin (and regulated) margins.



Thin margins? How about 10%-11% profit on a base of 4.6 million customers. The stock holders for my PoCo are not hurting. 



EatenByLimestone said:


> Would you be against Big Power getting into solar?


In my state Big Power already has 110MW worth of solar driven generation. Although the fuel cost for their solar generation is $0/kWh, they still charge customers $0.025 per kWh fuel charge for every kWh it generates.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 17, 2013)

Big Power can and is into solar on an ever increasing scale. 





> Distributed generation shakes up this century-old model by shifting control of electricity from utilities to smaller developers, communities or individuals, who produce power onsite and rely less on traditional grid infrastructure to keep the lights on. This, in turn, reduces the returns that utilities collect.


 Big Power Solar

Duke Energy has been a leader in Big Power support of solar.   Germany is a world leader in distributed generation and private ownership of solar electric systems.

BTW, Arizona Public Service electric utility spent more than $4 million to get the fee assessed. A problem with Big Power is that some of its members, like APS, are addicted to their entitlement: entitled to their monopoly, entitled to control the market, entitled to price control, entitled to a guaranteed return on investment and profits. Much of the public utility sector remains rooted on an outdated business model. It is like the horse and buggy industry trying to figure out how to deal with the new fangled automobile, and much of Big Power's strategy, like that of APS, is to cripple solar rather than join the ride to a brighter and cleaner future for all living things.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2013)

Where2 said:


> Thin margins? How about 10%-11% profit on a base of 4.6 million customers. The stock holders for my PoCo are not hurting.



Ok, In some months I pay my elec co $60 to run all the appliances and a little AC/heat in my house.  In the same month I pay Comcast >$60 for high speed internet access...blips of data on a wire.  What is their margin?  This (old) link suggests a profit margin of 70%!  http://www.freepress.net/blog/2009/11/24
Hi--speed in the EU costs more like $15-20/mo (and is faster).  I guess the US is a more efficient market.

Both firms have a near monopolistic business running wires into my house. I am a lot more angered by the latter than the former.  I would think most of the stockholders in your power co would be grannies, not fat cats lighting cigars with $20 bills.  

What should their profit margin be in your opinion to not be highway robbery?  With the enormous sunk costs your power co has, which are typically all debt financed, how big is that profit relative to their debt service and annual maintenance costs?


----------



## jebatty (Nov 17, 2013)

A little off the wall, I think, to support Big Power because grannies may hold some stock. If we want welfare for grannies because they need income, then make it welfare, but subsidize Big Power with monopolistic regulation so that grannies have income, really? Lame.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2013)

Not lame.  I am in fact saying you are missing the forest for the trees.  10% profit margin is 'outrageous' in a business with highly volatile fuel prices (costs), huge infrastructure and maintenance costs (that need to be insured against storms) AND that are some of the most regulated businesses out there?  Really? 

All y'all are missing some pretty outrageous stuff if you think THAT is an outrage.  You are only mad at them because you have to write them a check every month.

Go look up how hedge funds work, military contracts get doled out, Washington lobbyist firms, you name it.  You're all outraged about some guys taking $5 from you every month, while pretty much every other company you deal with is skimming a bigger profit margin.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 17, 2013)

jebatty said:


> A little off the wall, I think, to support Big Power because grannies may hold some stock. If we want welfare for grannies because they need income, then make it welfare, but subsidize Big Power with monopolistic regulation so that grannies have income, really? Lame.


 of course there are the 30 something grannies that have these companies in their ira, 401k, or general account. the great grannie unions in there pension funds and even grt.grt. grannies, the states, in their pensions. oh well.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 17, 2013)

The best way to keep money from Big Power is to lower energy usage.  It's not a bad philosophy for the rest of life either.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2013)

I am aok with Jim shaking his fist at the Power Cos if he wants.  He has the lowest kWh usage of anyone I know AND he's got the biggest PV array.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 17, 2013)

Edit: July of 2012 I finished off the attic of the house adding almost 50% to the heated/conditioned space of the house.  

I think the big jump for October 2012 was switching the electric dryer to gas.  

In July of '11 I switched hot water to gas.


----------



## DBoon (Nov 17, 2013)

Since the "Great Recession", electricity usage is flat or declining for most major utilities.  Yet, utilities only make ever-increasing profits by selling more electricity (i.e. regulated profits are tied to amount of electricity used).  Given the investor-owned utilities are listed on stock exchanges and their stock is held by those who want to see an ever-increasing stock price, it is not hard to see why investor-owned utilities are trying to come up with ways to make more money in a time of flat demand.  One way is to increase flat-rate service charges, and a solar charge is one way to do that.  Expect "flat-rate" fees to increase in the future, even if you don't have a solar system, since there is no more ways to make profit off a variable fee rate structure in a declining demand environment - solar PV interconnection charges are just the first wave. 

Having worked closely with investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in a previous job ~15 years ago, I can tell you that the staff and management of these companies are not the type to want to re-invent their business model.  If it never changed, that would make them the most happy.  This is not bad, in some ways (little change should equal better reliability).  But it makes it very hard to accomplish change of any kind.  Also, since de-regulation, the IOUs are keeping more revenue for profit and reducing long-term investment and maintenance - Northeast Utilities in Connecticut is a classic example of a completely mismanaged IOU in which their ratepayers pay high rates and get nothing for it.  Literally, every time CT has a storm, the power is out for days since there is no one left to fix anything when damage is widespread, and the idiotic managers seem incapable of planning for anything more than 1 day ahead.  Now, these IOUs have no other way to cut costs, so enter the flat-rate service charge increase!

IOUs are also very threatened by distributed generation.  Distributed generation, especially of clean power, is good for people as a whole (I know I'll get some pushback here from those who tell me how much of a premium the clean power costs to subsidize), but bad for IOUs, their stockholders, and the managers who get big bonuses for meeting or exceeding profit targets.  Worse, asking ossified IOUs to embrace distributed generation in some new form of profit model is liking speaking Chinese to a Russian.  Good luck.  It's interesting to note that Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) are more eager to embrace these changes since their customers want the changes and the MUDs are more responsive, overall, to the ratepayers since they don't have investors to answer to.  Sacramento MUD (SMUD) is a great example of this.  By the way, their rates are lower than the CA IOUs - coincidence? https://www.smud.org/en/residential...al/documents/2013-Rate-Proposal-factsheet.pdf

SMUD also generates a lot of "clean power" and seemingly doesn't have the issues of integrating distributed generation into its grid.  Why?  Probably because distributed generation is a net benefit and because they have a management structure and staff that makes it a good thing to do. 

For those who would offer criticism that solar PV is too heavily subsidized, I would offer back that those who are purchasing solar PV systems are assuming a far higher personal cost for their electricity while providing a clean power benefit to others who are not making those personal investments.  In essence, these solar PV pioneers are making a personal investment of 50% of the cost of clean power so that others don't have to make as large an investment.  

Example - A 5kW solar PV system that generates 6000 kWh of electricity a year for 20 years that has an installed cost (net with subsidies) of $3/watt and $5000 of maintenance and replacements over that time period (probably a pretty reasonable average) averages out to 17 cents/kWh - more than would be paid for bulk power from a utility (separate from the flat-rate monthly fees).  For me, the premium would be about 7 cents/kWh over a bulk power utility purchase.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 17, 2013)

> Go look up how hedge funds work, military contracts get doled out, Washington lobbyist firms, you name it. You're all outraged about some guys taking $5 from you every month, while pretty much every other company you deal with is skimming a bigger profit margin.


This looks like classic bate and switch, or rather raise another issue to distract from the current issue. No logic at all on this one. 

$5/month? 





> APS asked the regulators in July to add $50 to $100 to the monthly bills of new solar customers.


APS now has its foot in the door, and it will be much easier to get fee increases in the future. This isn't about $5/month. It's about clean energy that benefits all of us.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 17, 2013)

> The best way to keep money from Big Power is to lower energy usage.


True, but as more and more people pursue conservation, Big Power just would seek increases in fixed monthly charges. The bulk, if not all of my solar, will simply reduce my usage, just like conservation, which I also pursue all the time. And our utility just raised its monthly fixed charge for everyone by 16%/month. The consumer is caught between a rock and a hard place. Lower usage, fees go up. If you want to use solar and do the right thing for all living creatures, utility wants more fees from you.


----------



## btuser (Nov 17, 2013)

If solar could pay it's own way Big Biz would jump at it in a heartbeat.  But it can't, not yet.

Oil and gas subsidies pay for themselves through royalties.    Coal and nuclear is dying because of market forces, specifically the low cost of NG (and the comparably low capital cost for NG power plants), not because reweables are taking bites of market share.  Germany is not a success story, unless you consider $.32/kwh vs $.13kwh a good direction.  Germans pay 3x the cost per kwh as Americans.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2013)

jebatty said:


> This looks like classic bate and switch, or rather raise another issue to distract from the current issue. No logic at all on this one.
> 
> $5/month?



Did get OT, sorry, not trying to bait and switch you.  Where2 is outraged about 10% profits.  10%!  What is 10% of your electric bill?  Maybe $5?


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2013)

jebatty said:


> True, but as more and more people pursue conservation, Big Power just would seek increases in fixed monthly charges. The bulk, if not all of my solar, will simply reduce my usage, just like conservation, which I also pursue all the time. And our utility just raised its monthly fixed charge for everyone by 16%/month. The consumer is caught between a rock and a hard place. Lower usage, fees go up. If you want to use solar and do the right thing for all living creatures, utility wants more fees from you.



16% increase in monthly fees is what, $1?  $2?  IF someone showed you that your utility spent 90% of your bill on maintaining equipment, fuel, and payroll for its workers, would you still be upset about it?  If usage goes down due to eff and PV, and the utility downsizes, their costs go down too, so you think they will increase fees to maintain the same revenue?


----------



## TMonter (Nov 17, 2013)

jebatty said:


> We may be using "their" wires, but we also are saving them money by distributed generation at peak times, reducing their need to add peak power; also reducing their need to build additional power plants; also reducing their need to beef up their distribution lines. Big Power is scared stiff, it sees the end game, and it is not pretty for fossil fuel electric generation. This is about killing green power and ensuring the continued stuffing of profits in the pockets of Big Power, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Natural Gas, etc.



Not true at all. The grid can only take so much intermittent power before it starts causing major issues. 15% is about the maximum. As you approach this limit the problems caused by DG becomes greater and requires much more management.

This has nothing to do with killing green power but making green power producers pay the same costs any other independent power producer would be required to pay. Realistically solar power customers should be compensated at the utility's avoided cost rate, not at the retail rate.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 18, 2013)

> Not true at all. The grid can only take so much intermittent power before it starts causing major issues. 15% is about the maximum. As you approach this limit the problems caused by DG becomes greater and requires much more management.
> 
> This has nothing to do with killing green power but making green power producers pay the same costs any other independent power producer would be required to pay. Realistically solar power customers should be compensated at the utility's avoided cost rate, not at the retail rate.


This argument may have some merit when directed at genuine co-producers, those who put in solar for profit, but as related to homeowner solar electric, this is a smoke and mirrors argument by Big Power to kill green power to preserve their profit margins, to maintain demand on their systems, and in most areas of the US to preserve their public monopoly. Homeowners, with irrational exceptions aside, will not put in more solar than they use, and likely will install much less capacity than they use. Their use of solar electric has the same effect as moderate to ultra conservation, i.e., reduces demand for Big Power electricity. They will not put in more solar electric than they use because the cost is very high, much higher than buying from Big Power. As DBoon states 





> For those who would offer criticism that solar PV is too heavily subsidized, I would offer back that those who are purchasing solar PV systems are assuming a far higher personal cost for their electricity while providing a clean power benefit to others who are not making those personal investments. In essence, these solar PV pioneers are making a personal investment of 50% of the cost of clean power so that others don't have to make as large an investment.
> 
> Example - A 5kW solar PV system that generates 6000 kWh of electricity a year for 20 years that has an installed cost (net with subsidies) of $3/watt and $5000 of maintenance and replacements over that time period (probably a pretty reasonable average) averages out to 17 cents/kWh - more than would be paid for bulk power from a utility (separate from the flat-rate monthly fees). For me, the premium would be about 7 cents/kWh over a bulk power utility purchase.


The same is true for me. My annual use (2012-13) is about 12,000 kwh, and my estimated annual production is less than 8,000 kwh. And I have put in a substantial system, 6.5 kwh, in a ground mount array about 250 feet from my house. My system is considerably more expensive than a roof mount, and I did it not to co-produce, but to "do the right thing" and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants caused by my use of electricity. The estimated out of pocket cost payback time is very substantial, even after tax credits, and it is likely I won't even live long enough to see that payback time expire.

The limited periods I will produce more than I use will barely begin to offset use by other homeowners on the street on which I live. One or two of my neighbors using central air will consume more than my excess in the summer, and a couple of 1500 watt space heaters will consume more than my excess in winter, if I even have any excess in winter. There is no DG management problem.

Also, except perhaps in limited areas of the US, most homeowners cannot take advantage of any solar electric due to poor solar siting of their homes, shade from trees and other structures, poor roof designs, and lack of other space to install solar. And of those who physically could take advantage of solar, most cannot afford solar or are not motivated to install solar. Reiterating DBoon's comment: 





> those who are purchasing solar PV systems are assuming a far higher personal cost for their electricity while providing a clean power benefit to others who are not making those personal investments. In essence, these solar PV pioneers are making a personal investment of 50% of the cost of clean power so that others don't have to make as large an investment.


 ... makes it very good public policy to encourage homeowner solar electric for those willing and able to install it. Homeowner solar electric will always be a very small portion of total US electric production, although solar electric on a commercial scale, on a co-producer scale, will be increasing rapidly. Some of Big Power already are heavily invested in megawatt solar facilities, and this will continue.

Big Power's position with regard to homeowner solar electric is only about preserving the profits they make from small scale users, the homeowner. Homeowners and small users in general pay a higher rate than larger consumers, and then they are penalized both as they try to conserve, i.e., do the right thing, and as they install solar to reduce their carbon footprint.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Nov 18, 2013)

jebatty said:


> I read this to mean Big Power has not yet found a way to control and monopolize solar for its profit and to mean not yet found a way to profit from distributed generation.



Correct


----------



## dmmoss51 (Nov 18, 2013)

Where2 said:


> In my state Big Power already has 110MW worth of solar driven generation. Although the fuel cost for their solar generation is $0/kWh, they still charge customers $0.025 per kWh fuel charge for every kWh it generates.


 
I think the "fuel Charge" sounds like a way for these companies to charge more within the constraints of regulations.

I realize that you are pointing out his specific fuel charge and that is not lost I me.  I just want to play devils advocate and remind folks that green energy is not free energy.  The istallations are large capital expenditures and add long term maintenance needs to the picture. In many cases the green energy is more costly to produce at least with current infrasturcture than the traditional energy sources.  The commodity produced (KWhs) has a market value.  Without that market value they would not be in business, and without that value a home installation would not have any need either because there would be no net savings.

Best thing to do is work the supply and demand equation but reducing your demand, which has been pointed out already in this thread.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Nov 18, 2013)

Jim. Basically we are stuck with it as it exists now. 

Game changer will be tech changes in solar allowing the average household load to come off grid for the majority of the year. A huge tech change would be some young smart kid somewhere figuring out how to harness static electricity, then all small loads could come off the grid permanently. Leaving major commercial/industrial loads which are better served by on site/local generation. 

Until then same old same old. Plenty of infrastructure to pay for & maintain/upgrade.

BTW if anyone owns shares in an outfit with a 10% margin that is subject to the whims of the energy market & other volatile costs….sell those shares. A slim margin with volatile costs is usually a question of when not if you will have major $$$ troubles. Can't think of a single oil co that would/could have a cost of 30/barrel sell for 40/barrel & stay in business long term. Just too many bumps in the road for a narrow margin.

As an example we have 2 pipeline breaks locally in the leases, each is projected to cost in excess of 500 mil to fix & both have to wait for the ground to freeze hard enough to support the equipment, likely sometime in late december. So until they are repaired likely end of march, each barrel of oil is trucked out of the lease & enters someone else's pipeline somewhere else all of which costs big $$$. So these lease operators will spend + 1 bil to fix pipelines & incur trucking & additional pipeline costs for every barrel they produce until those leaks are fixed. Likely all production for a period of 7 months as the breaks occurred in Sept & Oct. Quite likely that this doubles their cost of production until repairs are complete. If they had a 10% margin that just might finish them & these are by no means small co's.

Try a little math experiment sometime….assume cash of 1 bil, annual production of 300 mil/barrels (very small firm), margin of 10%, then have an issue like above where cost of production doubles for a period of time. How many days after the problem is a company with 1 bil in cash reserves broke? BTW cost of production is well north of the $30/barrel above.

Part of the reason we pay the prices we pay & our energy is still cheap in comparison. In many cases we are +/- 50% of europe's prices.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 18, 2013)

jebatty said:


> This argument may have some merit when directed at genuine co-producers, those who put in solar for profit, but as related to homeowner solar electric, this is a smoke and mirrors argument by Big Power to kill green power to preserve their profit margins, to maintain demand on their systems, and in most areas of the US to preserve their public monopoly. Homeowners, with irrational exceptions aside, will not put in more solar than they use, and likely will install much less capacity than they use. Their use of solar electric has the same effect as moderate to ultra conservation, i.e., reduces demand for Big Power electricity. They will not put in more solar electric than they use because the cost is very high, much higher than buying from Big Power. As DBoon states



The problem is that regardless of whether they produce more than they use, they should not be compensated at more than the utility's avoided cost rate. After all if you are not producing power and the utility decided only to give you a fraction of the power you needed to run your home you'd scream bloody murder. The claim of maintaining profit margins is hollow especially considering the taxes levied on producers versus their actual margins.

Don't forget that the current power company monopoly was pushed by government because the claim of the time was that it wasn't possible to have multiple producers compete. This has created a regulatory stranglehold on innovation and change in the power market.


----------



## sesmith (Nov 18, 2013)

Since the sun doesn't shine at night...you need storage for a solar PV system.  Now it seems to me that $5/ month is a pretty reasonable price to pay for storage, when the alternative is to go off-grid and pay for and maintain a crapload of batteries.


----------



## btuser (Nov 18, 2013)

Electric power is still cheap.


----------



## DBoon (Nov 18, 2013)

sesmith said:


> Now it seems to me that $5/ month is a pretty reasonable price to pay for storage, when the alternative is to go off-grid and pay for and maintain a crapload of batteries.


I don't mind paying $5/month for storage - that would be considerably cheaper than the $15/month I pay right now.  However, I would like to benefit from the peak generation capability of my solar grid - if they are paying someone a 200% premium to produce power on a hot sunny day, then I want a cut of that as well.  Surprise - I don't get that.  It works both ways.


----------



## DBoon (Nov 18, 2013)

TMonter said:


> The problem is that regardless of whether they produce more than they use, they should not be compensated at more than the utility's avoided cost rate.


My solar power array is producing no more over the course of a year than I use, and the power company doesn't have to run 200 miles of transmission lines to get my power to my neighbors house.  What is the avoided cost of that for the utility?  Do I get a cut of that?  We're not talking about a 100 MW array here - just 5 - 6 kW every few houses - this is not likely to overwhelm the grid anywhere.  It will reduce utility profits, however.  What would be the avoided costs of not having pollution?  Or not having to build a new centralized power plant?  Do I get a cut of that?  



TMonter said:


> After all if you are not producing power and the utility decided only to give you a fraction of the power you needed to run your home you'd scream bloody murder.


Again, given that demand is lower at night, and higher during the day, I should be able to make more money by selling my excess and in-demand power to the utility during the daytime for a premium and buying it back at night when the prices are lower.  When do I get the same deal that utilities hand out to other power producers?  



TMonter said:


> Don't forget that the current power company monopoly was pushed by government because the claim of the time was that it wasn't possible to have multiple producers compete. This has created a regulatory stranglehold on innovation and change in the power market.


A well-regulated monopoly that serves the needs of its users is ok, an investor owned utility that is barely regulated and creates cost and fee structures that discourage conservation and cleaner sources of energy is not ok.  The best rate structure would be no flat fees and a purely variable rate structure to drive demand lower.  The lower demand went, the higher the per kWh cost of electricity, which would drive demand lower.  The reason this isn't done is because it would discourage demand so much it would greatly reduce the profits of the investor owned utilities, given current profit incentives.


----------



## sesmith (Nov 18, 2013)

DBoon said:


> I don't mind paying $5/month for storage - that would be considerably cheaper than the $15/month I pay right now.  However, I would like to benefit from the peak generation capability of my solar grid - if they are paying someone a 200% premium to produce power on a hot sunny day, then I want a cut of that as well.  Surprise - I don't get that.  It works both ways.



If you are net metering  you're getting paid retail pricing.  The premiums on hot summer days  would be premiums on wholesale pricing, so I think you're coming out ahead. Do you really want to be paid wholesale for what you let flow into the grid, and pay retail for what you get back out?  I'm sure the utility would just love that.  There is a good argument here, for higher solar pricing, though:

http://netdensity.net/2013/04/24/3051/


----------



## jebatty (Nov 19, 2013)

Not often for me to read a study based on MN data. Net Density does explain why a utility paying at least the retail rate is not over-paying for distributed generation from home owners. 

Minnesota law currently is solid on net metering at the average retail rate, and the last legislative session expanded incentives for solar power. Unfortunately, those incentives did not apply to Big Power Co-op electric utilities, of which I am a member because I have no other electric source choice available to me, and our co-op utility takes a position which discourages solar power and retail net metering, although it has no choice on this and was helpful and prompt in approving my system. 

I don't have facts on this, but I believe that one reason the co-op is opposed to solar electric is because it has long term contracts for western coal which lock it into coal for a long time to come. Probably a good business decision based on a dinosaur business model but not a good business decision for a forward looking company.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 19, 2013)

Another reason in MN to for homeowners to move to solar: 40% increase in average retail electric rates in the last 10 years.  Solar Energy Is Cheap


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 19, 2013)

The next thing will be universal standing charges on a "pay whether you use it or not" basis to reel in off grid users.  The Aussies do this and I've seen a reference to language supporting it being slipped into some state's energy policies, although I can't seem to find it now.  Anyone know about this?


----------



## jebatty (Nov 19, 2013)

This is and will be a political, public policy and cultural battle, and Big Power has Big Money to spend Big Time to gets its way. The APS utility spent over $4 million to get the $5/mo fee, knowing now it had its foot in the door to a future of increases. Environmentally safe electric power supporters and industry will have to outmatch Big Power and stay a step ahead all the time.


----------



## btuser (Nov 19, 2013)

The whole business model of residential utilities is going topsy turvy.  I'm surprised telco is even around anymore.  Verizon (after spending billions getting ready for it) has abandoned new roll outs for FIOS.  Can't say I blame them when 4gte promises 100mb speeds.   Comcast is struggling with Netflix and ipvideo.  Its a mess.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 19, 2013)

DBoon said:


> My solar power array is producing no more over the course of a year than I use, and the power company doesn't have to run 200 miles of transmission lines to get my power to my neighbors house.  What is the avoided cost of that for the utility?  Do I get a cut of that?  We're not talking about a 100 MW array here - just 5 - 6 kW every few houses - this is not likely to overwhelm the grid anywhere.  It will reduce utility profits, however.  What would be the avoided costs of not having pollution?  Or not having to build a new centralized power plant?  Do I get a cut of that?
> 
> 
> Again, given that demand is lower at night, and higher during the day, I should be able to make more money by selling my excess and in-demand power to the utility during the daytime for a premium and buying it back at night when the prices are lower.  When do I get the same deal that utilities hand out to other power producers?
> ...



The idea that a regulated monopoly is okay is false. Again it reduces innovation, drives up prices, and discourages re-investment and this can be observed in almost any market. Look at the condition of the infrastructure around this country for a prime example.

Regardless of whether you are producing more than you use, the utility is still required to remain connected to you and back-meter all the electricity you do produce. They also have to account for the potential demand of your house should your solar system fail. The power company has to keep a full reserve for every single house regardless of the 5-6kW of power you may or may not produce. Are you willing to limit your usage to the difference should your solar system be offline or the sun isn't shining? I doubt it. As for not having to run transmission lines to move the power, yes they do, and they have to maintain those lines. 

Demand is not necessarily lower at "night" than during the day, especially depending on the time of year. There certainly is peak hour times and off peak hours but where those fall shifts depending on the time of year.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2013)

Charging fees on SOLAR is just a bad idea. Until it dominates the market, fees will just hurt a struggling FF alternative.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 19, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Charging fees on SOLAR is just a bad idea. Until it dominates the market, fees will just hurt a struggling FF alternative.



But it's not a bad idea if it's a cost to the utility which it is. Solar should stand on its own and if it can't make a value proposition, then why should it be adopted?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2013)

If utilities had to pay a carbon tax (which they may at some point) it would be a whole new ball game. They would then welcome off setting credits like solar


----------



## TMonter (Nov 19, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> If utilities had to pay a carbon tax (which they may at some point) it would be a whole new ball game. They would then welcome off setting credits like solar



Which would drastically drive up the cost of power hurting the poorest people the most and again distorting the market to support a technology that is not economically (Or technically on a large scale) viable otherwise. Take a look at corn ethanol and what it has done to the food market, and you want to do the same thing with power production?


----------



## MishMouse (Nov 19, 2013)

The power company that serves me charges a line usage fee along with a line maintenance fee. (Not dependent on power usage)
If the power company charges all its customers these base fees I see no reason to charge a customer if they obtain some of their power from an alternative source. 

The same thing goes for propane companies that charge people a few hundred dollar fee for not using a certain amount of propane. Especially since you have to pay tank rental, contract fees, and delivery charges.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Which would drastically drive up the cost of power hurting the poorest people the most and again distorting the market to support a technology that is not economically (Or technically on a large scale) viable otherwise. Take a look at corn ethanol and what it has done to the food market, and you want to do the same thing with power production?


Getting rid of oil subsidies and corp welfare and making companies pay for environmental damage would drive up the cost of gasoline as well. As MM said were already paying for the delivery. Our power provider claims they dont make a cent on generation. So they dont care who you chose for a generation provider.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 19, 2013)

MishMouse said:


> The power company that serves me charges a line usage fee along with a line maintenance fee. (Not dependent on power usage)
> If the power company charges all its customers these base fees I see no reason to charge a customer if they obtain some of their power from an alternative source.
> 
> The same thing goes for propane companies that charge people a few hundred dollar fee for not using a certain amount of propane. Especially since you have to pay tank rental, contract fees, and delivery charges.



Not all power bills have that charge integrated and there is additional metering and reporting that has to be done for net power producers. The end user should pay those charges just like any other IPP.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 19, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Getting rid of oil subsidies and corp welfare and making companies pay for environmental damage would drive up the cost of gasoline as well. As MM said were already paying for the delivery. Our power provider claims they dont make a cent on generation. So they dont care who you chose for a generation provider.



There are really very few oil subsidies these days. Tax breaks maybe, but not subsidies.

I agree that companies should be required to foot the entire cost of their operation, but this is the problem with the current regulation scheme and favoring solar power certainly isn't going to fix that.


----------



## Jags (Nov 19, 2013)

I have said it before....IF (and it appears that we are) going to give breaks of any nature to an energy source - I would prefer it to be in the form of renewables.  It only makes sense for the long run.  Why we aren't doing a JFK shoot to the moon movement is beyond me.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 19, 2013)

If im not mistaken i read that solar panels actually save a utility a load of dough by producing power at the peak demand time of day thereby saving them from have to buy very expensive peak demand power costing many times the standard KW rate. Enough solar in the mix and the utility saves even more by not needing all that stand by generating capacity which is only used at the precise time the solar is at its greatest generating potential. The trade off should  at least negate any "fees" the utility might be tempted to charge.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 19, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> If im not mistaken i read that solar panels actually save a utility a load of dough by producing power at the peak demand time of day thereby saving them from have to buy very expensive peak demand power costing many times the standard KW rate. Enough solar in the mix and the utility saves even more by not needing all that stand by generating capacity which is only used at the precise time the solar is at its greatest generating potential. The trade off should  at least negate any "fees" the utility might be tempted to charge.



Exactly. Our utility is paying 6 ct per kWh in addition to net metering for solar power in order to avoid paying peak rates in the utility market. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=VT34F


----------



## Grisu (Nov 19, 2013)

TMonter said:


> But it's not a bad idea if it's a cost to the utility which it is. Solar should stand on its own and if it can't make a value proposition, then why should it be adopted?



Because it preserves valuable non-renewable resources for future generations i. e. our society spends something we can generate unlimited amounts of (money) to save something that is restricted (fossil fuel energy). We are currently drawing down the savings account of mother earth but there is no overdraft or credit. When it is gone it is gone.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 19, 2013)

TMonter said:


> The idea that a regulated monopoly is okay is false. Again it reduces innovation, drives up prices, and discourages re-investment and this can be observed in almost any market. Look at the condition of the infrastructure around this country for a prime example.



Funny how a government funded new-deal program was able to enhance the infrastructure of this country by bringing electricity to many rural areas. I will also go out on a limb here and suggest that this enhanced innovation and increased productivity in rural areas. And if we would stop worrying about things like the federal deficit and concentrate on the stuff that really matters we could easily fix the infrastructure and leave our kids with some real "savings".


----------



## TMonter (Nov 20, 2013)

Grisu said:


> Funny how a government funded new-deal program was able to enhance the infrastructure of this country by bringing electricity to many rural areas. I will also go out on a limb here and suggest that this enhanced innovation and increased productivity in rural areas. And if we would stop worrying about things like the federal deficit and concentrate on the stuff that really matters we could easily fix the infrastructure and leave our kids with some real "savings".



But you're missing a big point. DG may have been much further along had the government not pushed centralized power in the beginning and creating government controlled monopolies. A lot of resources were used to bring powers to rural areas in a very inefficient means.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 20, 2013)

TMonter said:


> But you're missing a big point. DG may have been much further along had the government not pushed centralized power in the beginning and creating government controlled monopolies. A lot of resources were used to bring powers to rural areas in a very inefficient means.



Government pushed centralized power? Sometimes I really would like to know where you get your info from. In the early 20th century utilities started buying up each other thereby creating monopolies without any government involvement. It was FDR who finally put a stop to that and enabled the electrification of rural areas. 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html


----------



## TMonter (Nov 20, 2013)

Grisu said:


> Government pushed centralized power? Sometimes I really would like to know where you get your info from. In the early 20th century utilities started buying up each other thereby creating monopolies without any government involvement. It was FDR who finally put a stop to that and enabled the electrification of rural areas.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html



That doesn't disprove what I said Grisu. Government did in fact push for centralized power and a monopoly on generation.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 20, 2013)

TMonter said:


> That doesn't disprove what I said Grisu. Government did in fact push for centralized power and a monopoly on generation.



Too bad you did not proof anything in the first place (as usual).


----------



## GaryGary (Nov 20, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> If im not mistaken i read that solar panels actually save a utility a load of dough by producing power at the peak demand time of day thereby saving them from have to buy very expensive peak demand power costing many times the standard KW rate. Enough solar in the mix and the utility saves even more by not needing all that stand by generating capacity which is only used at the precise time the solar is at its greatest generating potential. The trade off should  at least negate any "fees" the utility might be tempted to charge.




I think this is open to some debate.   In CA, I think you can make the argument that they pay a premium for power in the late afternoon, and that solar PV may be a good deal for the utility even though they are paying full retail for it.  But, from what I've read a lot of utilities can buy power wholesale at about about a nickel a KWH any time of day, and paying full retail to customers with PV arrays is genuinely a bad deal for them.  It seems like its also a bad deal in that the utility has to take the power from the customer PV arrays whether they need it or not and don't have much control over how much they get or when they get it -- not exactly the ideal supplier to deal with.

I'm all for net metering and the utility paying full retail to customers with PV as an incentive to get the industry going, and its not really much of a problem for the utility when PV is only supplying a couple percent of the power, but clearly it will become a big problem as the percentage increases.  When the percentage of PV owners gets up there, then paying PV owners full retail for the power they generate is effectively a subsidy to them from their neighbors who don't have PV.  

Gary


----------



## jebatty (Nov 21, 2013)

> When the percentage of PV owners gets up there, then paying PV owners full retail for the power they generate is effectively a subsidy to them from their neighbors who don't have PV.



Not exactly correct, and in fact the opposite may be true. Measuring the cost or value of solar just by the $$$ paid by the utility for wholesale power is only a small part of the value of solar.



> If you add all this up, (an economically optimal price on carbon, savings from transmission losses, and a wholesale price consistent with the 5-year peak average), you get a value of solar energy
> between 9.5 and 13 cents per kWh.
> ...
> Keep in mind there are other values of solar energy I haven’t considered in my calculus. [... must also include] the savings from delaying capital investments in distribution infrastructure, savings from not having to build more generation, fuel price hedge value savings (not having to bet on fuel costs), and the value of local employment generated by manufacture and installation of solar energy.


http://netdensity.net/2013/04/24/3051/


----------



## Where2 (Nov 23, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Where2 is outraged about 10% profits.  10%!  What is 10% of your electric bill?  Maybe $5?


Since you asked: 10% would have been $3.45 last month. However, an additional $5 fee would exceed the ~$4 in profit the PoCo would have made if I had no PV system providing 400kWh of distributed generation last month. However, 400kWh isn't what I sent back to the grid... I'm already time shifting my third largest energy consumer in the house (the electric water heater). It runs during the typical window of my peak production. If we really boil it down to what I consider might be fair, lets talk about the 275kWh I sent back to the grid last month (through my net meter). 10% of 275kWh at my typical electric rates isn't $5, it's $2.80.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 24, 2013)

Grisu said:


> Too bad you did not proof anything in the first place (as usual).



What you posted supports what I said.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 24, 2013)

jebatty said:


> Not exactly correct, and in fact the opposite may be true. Measuring the cost or value of solar just by the $$$ paid by the utility for wholesale power is only a small part of the value of solar.
> 
> http://netdensity.net/2013/04/24/3051/



If there were that much advantage to distributed solar it would be more widespread. However the advantages are minimal and it has a lot of pitfalls.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 24, 2013)

TMonter said:


> What you posted supports what I said.



What I posted supports the fact that power generation was centralized and monopolized before government involvement. This paragraph explains it nicely that not government _created_ centralized power (as you claim) but tried to _regulate_ it once it was established:

"By 1907, Insull had acquired 20 other utility companies and renamed his firm Commonwealth Edison.[1] He and others argued that electric utilities were a "natural monopoly" because it would be inefficient to build multiple transmission and distribution systems due to the great expense of capital investment. Therefore it was inherent that only one company would dominate the market. The emerging utility monopolies were vertically integrated, meaning they controlled the generation of electric power, its transmission in real time across high-voltage wires, and its low-voltage distribution to homes and businesses. Reformers of the Progressive Era tried to govern these emerging utility monopolies through state regulation. By 1914, 43 states had established regulatory polices governing electric utilities.[2]"

In addition, rural electrification would not have happened as fast and as thorough as it did during the New Deal during FDR's administration if it would even happened at all. You seem to think business owners are mere idiots that would try to connect a few hundred customers in rural area with miles of transmission lines when they can have several thousands customers with less effort in an urban area. Which business owner in his right mind would be willing to chase such a low profit business with such high risks unless someone made him to?


----------



## DBoon (Nov 24, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Not true at all. The grid can only take so much intermittent power before it starts causing major issues. 15% is about the maximum. As you approach this limit the problems caused by DG becomes greater and requires much more management.



The grid can take the amount of intermittent power it is designed to take.  As it is designed today, it may be around 15-20%.  It could be a lot more if different grid management strategies were adopted, different power buying models integrated into the utility purchasing system, and different billing incentives were incorporated.  In general, utilities want none of this - just status quo.  That may be good for them, but it is bad for everyone else.  



TMonter said:


> This has nothing to do with killing green power but making green power producers pay the same costs any other independent power producer would be required to pay. Realistically solar power customers should be compensated at the utility's avoided cost rate, not at the retail rate.



The problem with this is that a utility calculating avoided cost rate is about as transparent as a Hollywood movie studio calculating how much profit they made on their last movie so they know what profit sharing percentage to pay out.  Utilities always seem to end up with 2 cents per kWh - regardless of time of day, and Hollywood movie studios always seem to lose money on every movie they make.  



TMonter said:


> After all if you are not producing power and the utility decided only to give you a fraction of the power you needed to run your home you'd scream bloody murder.



This just make no sense at all...I have no idea what your point is here. 



sesmith said:


> If you are net metering you're getting paid retail pricing. The premiums on hot summer days would be premiums on wholesale pricing, so I think you're coming out ahead.



If they metered my home to 1) tell me what the hourly price they were paying for electricity was, 2) what the price was they were selling that electricity to me was, 3) let me control my usage to buy or sell electricity based on the data I am getting, then I am sure that within 1 year some Silicon Valley company would offer me a system for $1000 that would assess this info and turn on/off discretionary use items in my home in a way that would allow me to profit from this situation.  But the utility doesn't offer this capability.  My guess is that likely because there is no money in it for them - I am sure I could come out ahead with this model.  Here is how high tech most utilties are - my utility was still sending a guy out every other month to read a meter with analog dials on it.  They can't do this remotely?  And if they could, why not make that info available in real-time to me?   And then supply a complete demand management kit to go with it?  It boggles the mind. 



TMonter said:


> The power company has to keep a full reserve for every single house regardless of the 5-6kW of power you may or may not produce. Are you willing to limit your usage to the difference should your solar system be offline or the sun isn't shining? I doubt it. As for not having to run transmission lines to move the power, yes they do, and they have to maintain those lines.



Very few power companies generate anything anymore. They are arranging for capacity, but others supply it.  There may be base-load contracts, which incidentally, can result in more nighttime availability of electricity that utilities can get rid of.  The result is near-zero or negative rates to get rid of the power - a completely ridiculous situation.  Other contracts are for peaking demand, at higher cost, with quick-firing natural gas turbine generation.  Peaking operation is expensive in the summer and also can be in the winter if natural gas supplies run short.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 25, 2013)

Grisu said:


> What I posted supports the fact that power generation was centralized and monopolized before government involvement. This paragraph explains it nicely that not government _created_ centralized power (as you claim) but tried to _regulate_ it once it was established:
> 
> "By 1907, Insull had acquired 20 other utility companies and renamed his firm Commonwealth Edison.[1] He and others argued that electric utilities were a "natural monopoly" because it would be inefficient to build multiple transmission and distribution systems due to the great expense of capital investment. Therefore it was inherent that only one company would dominate the market. The emerging utility monopolies were vertically integrated, meaning they controlled the generation of electric power, its transmission in real time across high-voltage wires, and its low-voltage distribution to homes and businesses. Reformers of the Progressive Era tried to govern these emerging utility monopolies through state regulation. By 1914, 43 states had established regulatory polices governing electric utilities.[2]"
> 
> In addition, rural electrification would not have happened as fast and as thorough as it did during the New Deal during FDR's administration if it would even happened at all. You seem to think business owners are mere idiots that would try to connect a few hundred customers in rural area with miles of transmission lines when they can have several thousands customers with less effort in an urban area. Which business owner in his right mind would be willing to chase such a low profit business with such high risks unless someone made him to?



Which illustrates my point. That creates a market for someone to come up with a innovative DG solution for areas where grid power was not available.

What you fail to mention Grisu, that was before centralization by government, there were many more companies around that were distributing power. The claim that it was inherent that only one company would dominate a market doesn't hold a lot of water when you look at the number of utilities before and after regulation.


----------



## Grisu (Nov 25, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Which illustrates my point. That creates a market for someone to come up with a innovative DG solution for areas where grid power was not available.



Solutions like homeowner PV? Or wind power? 



> What you fail to mention Grisu, that was before centralization by government, there were many more companies around that were distributing power.



And what you fail to mention is that this was a necessity with DC power distribution. 



> The claim that it was inherent that only one company would dominate a market doesn't hold a lot of water when you look at the number of utilities before and after regulation.



Numbers? Or are those again "facts" taken out of the "Austrian thin air"?


----------



## jebatty (Nov 25, 2013)

My power company supplies off-peak at a rate which is 60% less than the general service rate. Off-peak is controlled by a device installed at the house which reads a signal sent by the power company over the grid. Off-peak is generally 11:00pm - 7:00am, and also whenever the power company wants to turn it on, which happens fairly frequently based on the loud bang from a switch/relay on our power panel. 

In my simple mind approach, it seems to me that because our power company sells off-peak at a rate which is 60% less than the general service rate, the power company has bought a lot of expensive (base load ?) power to meet day time demand and needs to dump that expensive power at night at a reduced rate in an attempt to get some return on power that otherwise is paid for and would have been wasted. To me this looks like a business decision built on a business model of remote, large generating plants, very expensive, inefficient and large transmission losses, rather than on a flexible model of DG using foreseeable alternative energy, and on a model of giving incentives to encourage customer efficiency and reduced daytime demand so that it could sell off-peak power at a higher rate, or maybe even eliminate off-peak rate power, and thereby increase overall profits by evening out demand.

It also could be a business model built on the bright bulbs at the power company entering into a long term contract for remote generation using "cheap" and dirty Wyoming and Dakota coal, thinking that coal was the energy of the future. Kind of like buying stock in the horseshoe company around the turn into the 20th century thinking that horseshoes were a secure bet. Also makes a person think that the bright bulbs were about 99 watts short of 100.

What? A power company that encourages a customer not to use them so it will be more efficient and economical? Might it be that traditional Big Power is a fossilized dinosaur that thrives on consuming fossilized fuel? Perhaps it is time to dim the lights on a fossilized business and move electrical power generation into the 21st century.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 25, 2013)

Why can't we say that their baseload (coal) is 'cheap' and they are selling you that at their cost+markup overnight.  And then they charge you 160% of that rate during the day, to cover more expensive peak generation.  

Are you getting the daytime retail rate for you solar backfed PV?  You could put your DHW on a nighttime timer and sell expensive kWh to them during the day, and take back cheap kWh at night for the tank.  Of course, you would have net CO2 emissions with this plan.  Conversely, if you wanted to minimize your backfeed (and CO2) you would put your DHW on a daytime timer to run during peak sun hours.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 25, 2013)

> Why can't we say that their baseload (coal) is 'cheap' and they are selling you that at their cost+markup overnight. And then they charge you 160% of that rate during the day, to cover more expensive peak generation.


It's could be somewhere between because the off-peak meter/electric supply is kicked in from time to time during non-peak hours, and I doubt that the power company would want to sell us expensive peak power at the off-peak rate, unless the peak power available was in excess of demand.

We get daytime retail rate for backfed PV. The electric heat and dhw are on a separate meter that gets charged the lower rate regardless of the time of day, provided that the off-peak power is available.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 25, 2013)

Grisu said:


> Solutions like homeowner PV? Or wind power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-301.html

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no3Full.pdf

The idea that there was ever a "natural monopoly" doesn't seem to fit with the fact Grisu. Consolidation was done to some extent to take advantage of economy of scale, but prior to government regulation there was very healthy competition in the electric power market.


----------



## Laszlo (Dec 8, 2013)

I'm just gonna leave this here: 

Surprisingly catchy criticism of the APS decision, set to the tune of _Total Eclipse of the Heart_. Even more surprisingly, it's the work of Barry Goldwater Jr. and his group TUSK, some dissenting conservatives who are opposed to the new solar "tax" and argue energy choice and competition is the real conservative way.


----------

