Image by Daniel Nadelbach, Mother Earth Living In what's just the latest of several similar moves to make customers who have rooftop solar electricity systems "pay their fair share" for being less polluting, the largest utility in New Mexico, PNM Resources, has proposed a surcharge
Sort of like the $20 a month I pay to ConEd for the privilege of having a gas pipe - from which I draw $0.95 worth of gas. As motmelere said above, it's fine if it really reflects, specifically, the infrastructure cost of the connection, and if all customers pay the same fee. Costs of the goddam coal mine, and the new coal-fired plant, should certainly not be dumped on solar users.
PS: buy your solar panels now, because the Gov't just slapped a huge import duty on those cheap panels from China.
if you're off the grid they don't charge you a fee. Right now, that option is still really expensive though. a friend of mine in the solar biz has done a couple off grid installs, but they're not cost effective. You also lose the ability to sell back your excess power- it's really just an option for rural people who can't get A/C service without spending a fortune.
A minuscule monthly line charge like the $5 fee they incorporated here in AZ seems reasonable to help cover infrastructure costs. Between the fee and the differential between the wholesale rate they pay for your A/C vs the retail rate they charge you for theirs at night, they make more than enough to offset costs. But utility companies aren't merely looking for a small cost offset, these days they want to crush the residential solar industry and keep the one way flow of energy, however it's produced. It's going to be seriously hard to keep them from buying up the regulatory agency seats with all the ALEC and Koch money though. They spent a fortune here last election to defeat the pro solar candidates. Sadly, millions of sheep voted against their own support of solar power (it's really quite popular here, even amongst conservatives) just because of the letter R after the anti solar candidates names and the ugly smear campaign paid for by out of state money.
The reason they're OK with energy efficient appliances and energy conservation is because if we use too much, especially during peak demand times, they'll have to spend money to increase their infrastructure to meet that demand. It's better for them to manage demand without spending on increased capacity. Residential solar is a threat to their monopoly.
Parts wear out or break. Lines need replacing. Storms still take out utility poles and blow up transformers. Unless you completely disconnect from the grid you are still using their power at night. Your meter still needs to be read, your bills still need to be sent out (even if you zero it out, someone needs to tally it, etc) your calls still need to be answered by customer service, someone still needs to run the main plant- there are a ton of costs involved. Just the fact that you are using their infrastructure to sell them back your excess power and it's now their obligation to accept it and distribute it is worth something. Without a local electric company you better plan on buying enough batteries to get you through the night and a series of rainy days and without a local electric company you're going to have a hard time selling off all the excess juice you generate during the day to help defray the costs of installing that solar system.
This is an easy one for teh liebral tree huggers to get worked up about and demagogue, but yes, it does cost money to maintain both the infrastructure and all the related customer service. There's a difference between charging a reasonable user fee and jacking the price up to make residential solar uncompetitive. Going full blown "fuck the utility company" causes people to lose sight of that fact. Besides, what are you going to do with all that excess power you generate every day without a grid and someone to buy it?
Sort of like the $20 a month I pay to ConEd for the privilege of having a gas pipe - from which I draw $0.95 worth of gas. As motmelere said above, it's fine if it really reflects, specifically, the infrastructure cost of the connection, and if all customers pay the same fee. Costs of the goddam coal mine, and the new coal-fired plant, should certainly not be dumped on solar users.
PS: buy your solar panels now, because the Gov't just slapped a huge import duty on those cheap panels from China.
if you're off the grid they don't charge you a fee. Right now, that option is still really expensive though. a friend of mine in the solar biz has done a couple off grid installs, but they're not cost effective. You also lose the ability to sell back your excess power- it's really just an option for rural people who can't get A/C service without spending a fortune.
I was not aware that C. Montgomery Burns owned a utility in New Mexico as well.
A minuscule monthly line charge like the $5 fee they incorporated here in AZ seems reasonable to help cover infrastructure costs. Between the fee and the differential between the wholesale rate they pay for your A/C vs the retail rate they charge you for theirs at night, they make more than enough to offset costs. But utility companies aren't merely looking for a small cost offset, these days they want to crush the residential solar industry and keep the one way flow of energy, however it's produced. It's going to be seriously hard to keep them from buying up the regulatory agency seats with all the ALEC and Koch money though. They spent a fortune here last election to defeat the pro solar candidates. Sadly, millions of sheep voted against their own support of solar power (it's really quite popular here, even amongst conservatives) just because of the letter R after the anti solar candidates names and the ugly smear campaign paid for by out of state money.
The reason they're OK with energy efficient appliances and energy conservation is because if we use too much, especially during peak demand times, they'll have to spend money to increase their infrastructure to meet that demand. It's better for them to manage demand without spending on increased capacity. Residential solar is a threat to their monopoly.
As long as it's a sincerely held belief, that's okay. The SCrOTUS will be on your side.
You know...it just dawned on me...don't they have dark skin and/or fur?
I think I read something about Florida pols making it mandatory to have a meter on the house. Too lazy to look it up though.
"The problem is when they try to use those fees to make residential solar uncompetitive"
You call it a problem...they call it a strategy.
My Elizabeth Warren mug doesn't hold enough scotch to enable me to cope with this.
Parts wear out or break. Lines need replacing. Storms still take out utility poles and blow up transformers. Unless you completely disconnect from the grid you are still using their power at night. Your meter still needs to be read, your bills still need to be sent out (even if you zero it out, someone needs to tally it, etc) your calls still need to be answered by customer service, someone still needs to run the main plant- there are a ton of costs involved. Just the fact that you are using their infrastructure to sell them back your excess power and it's now their obligation to accept it and distribute it is worth something. Without a local electric company you better plan on buying enough batteries to get you through the night and a series of rainy days and without a local electric company you're going to have a hard time selling off all the excess juice you generate during the day to help defray the costs of installing that solar system.
This is an easy one for teh liebral tree huggers to get worked up about and demagogue, but yes, it does cost money to maintain both the infrastructure and all the related customer service. There's a difference between charging a reasonable user fee and jacking the price up to make residential solar uncompetitive. Going full blown "fuck the utility company" causes people to lose sight of that fact. Besides, what are you going to do with all that excess power you generate every day without a grid and someone to buy it?