Perhaps we need to look to other cities/countries that are implementing
renewable energy and selling the excess to surrounding cities. Wildpoldsried
Germany has taken over their own grid and now generates enough excess power to
create $5.7 million in revenues for their city annually - obviously Rocky
Mountain Power does not have the best interest of Utah in mind perhaps a change
is in order!
I spend 4 months a year in Utah -- I love Utah's outdoors.The
rest of the year I live and work in Silicon Valley. One day a week I commute to
the office, well I actually car pool to work with my girlfriend who works at
Google. On the way to work the HOV lanes are filling up with electric cars. We
usually see a google self-driving car too. Once we get to Google the entire
front row of parking places is full of electric cars being charged while people
work.When working from home I walk to the post office. I see many
houses with solar panels. Solar City will install them for free and rent them to
you for less than your electric bill.Welcome to the future.
It's here today and Utah needs to catch up with Silicon Valley. Let's
encourage renewables anyway we can. If we're smart we could also use
renewables and electric cars to also solve the winter inversion problem. Yesterday I ordered a 4.3 Kwatt solar array for my house in Sandy, which
should more than offset my annual usage. I encourage you to do the same.
rocky mountain powers request to increase solar net customers does not make
sense to me.the biggest worry for rocky mountain is maintaining and
updating their infrastructure for INCREASED demand.solar net users
decrease the need for this cost.it seems to me that rocky mountain power
should not only reimburse solar net customers market rate,, but also pay an
incentive fee to net solar users for providing clean energy for power customers
to use.upside down: lets put is right side up
they already charge net metering residential customers an additional $4 to $8
charge each month now. look at your rocky mountain power bill (sorry I
can't use proper capitalization - they kick out my comment for shouting)
there will be a bunch of junk charges based on your kwh useage. If you go to
net metering, since your usage will go down, those charges are now replaced by a
non-varying fee called a net metering fee. think that is an average of what it
used to be or closer to the maximum? guess. utah and rmp does not want solar.
bigbusiness is running this country, don't make any mistake. Check your
electric bill just before the state decided to convert to rmp, then see how much
it has increased.
I have noticed that solar is the focus of both the article and the comments. I
have been researching the installation of wind generation on the roof of my home
here in Oregon and it seems to be about half the money of solar. Being somewhat
familiar with Utah, I can honestly say I am surprised no one has mentioned all
the power being generated along the slopes of the Wasatch Front. I know the wind
blows there just about everyday. I have seen designs for wind power in vertical
and horizontal positions for rooftop and mast mounted installation. I wonder!
Some of the comments here decry the assertion that consumer generated power is a
"good" investment. It would seem that the only fair determinate of that
appellation--good--is the one making the investment.As a society we
have become very aware of the accounting term Return On Investment(ROI) as a way
to judge what we might want to do with our money which is excess to our standard
of living. I believe that might be a valid number to know but a pretty poor
determinant if used alone. Frankly, it smacks of greed.
As I understand it RMP is trying to change from buying consumer-generated power
at a "retail" rate to a "wholesale" rate. That is an argument
supported only by assertion that power is disconnected in time and or place. The
real picture is that RMP supplies power and the consumer pays for power on a
monthly basis. Consumers who generate some of their own power sometimes generate
more than they need and so the net use of power over the month is less; thus
lower net billing to that customer. They are viewing that circumstance as paying
retail for the lost sales. That is a thinking error and I was disappointed that
the government agency seemed to be open to thinking that way. They
aren't alone; most accountants have been trained to use a
"potential" as an opportunity cost in planning of any revenue
@JoeCapitalist2--You are making assumptions I believe are not accurate. Based
on the size of his system, I imagine he is saving about $150/month on average
over the entire year, not just the summer peak months. Quite possibly it is
even more.Additionally, on top of a 30% fed tax CREDIT, there is a
20% state tax credit (up to $2000). So his out of pocket is closer to 18K
(unless he did this system before there was a state tax credit).Lastly, there are other reasons besides financial that we do these things.
PEOPLE--please do not be misinformed. As a net metered customer, if I were to
produce more power than I consume for a given year, RMP DOES NOT pay me for that
extra electricity. Month to month, yes, it is carried forward and used against
future months usage--ONLY UP TO THE POINT OF USAGE...NO MORE! At the end of the
year, the slate is "wiped clean." In other words, if I had a surplus of
500kWh that I had produced over what I consumed, RMP resets the counter to 0 and
starts the new year...they GET those 500kWh.PLEASE BE AWARE OF THIS
GARBAGE RATE INCREASE AND UNDERSTAND IT FOR WHAT IT IS. Others above have
already commented on many of the other benefits RMP receives from net metering
customers.One more thing, we do already pay an interconnection fee
ON TOP OF any electricity overage produced. It is 5 or 6 bucks a month. My
understanding is that this interconnection fee is supposed to cover the
infrastructure costs claimed by RMP to be so much disturbed by us net metering
Isn't this like charging ward members a fee for bringing food to ward party
pot luck?[...um, it's to help off set the costs for wear and tear on
chairs and tables...]Wrong on so many levels...
As the person mentioned in the article, I'd like to clarify a few things
and explain why the pie chart graphics give the wrong impression and why the
$4.25 charge cannot be justified.RMP claims that my overproduction
has a dramatic impact on their infrastructure. Here's the truth:- The only impact my overproduction has is on the 75’ from my meter to
the common junction with my neighbor. From there it goes directly into my
neighbor’s box and doesn’t get anywhere close to a high-voltage
line, power generation facility, etc.- When RMP ‘buys’ my
power they do so at a lower rate; when the resell that power to my neighbor they
do so at a higher tier rate.- When a kWh of my efficiently overproduced
power goes to my neighbor it eliminates the need for RMP to inefficiently
produce multiple kWh’s at a distant power plant.- Every kWh I
generate, overproduced or not, has far less carbon impact than the coal or gas
burning power plants used by RMP.Space here is limited so see my
comments at the PSC here goo.gl/MSzE5A and the RMP filing here goo.gl/Z66cGs.Mike Rossetti
micawber: So how much do you save on electricity each year due to your solar
panels? How much did it cost you to install and maintain each year? How long
will it take to "break even" on your investment without taking into
account any tax subsidy you might have received? 20 years? 30?If so,
you might feel good about your contribution to "clean energy", but
don't try to claim that it is a good investment.
@Joe Capitalist. Solar panels generate electricity all year long, not just when
air conditioning is being used. My solar system generated more than 25 kWh
today. I did not use my air conditioning today.
A $5.00 dollar fee is going to offseet this huge burden? This proposal will
generate $132,000.00. That's not even a drop in the bucket. Not to mention
the fact that these customers actually provide free generating capacity during
In all, Rossetti estimates he spent $28,000 on the project, but he received a 30
percent tax break as an incentive...We wanted to reduce our (electricity)
bills,” Rossetti explained...His monthly cost for air conditioning in the
warm weather months has gone from the $250 to $300 range to about $120. Thus
far, it has been a worthwhile investment, Rossetti said."He
needs to learn a thing or two about "investing". Assuming the maximum
savings ($180) for the 4 months each year we need air conditioning, that equates
to about $720 a year. Even if you expanded it to $1000 savings per year, it
would take 28 years to break even (assuming money spent today has the same value
as money spent 27 years from now).I will invest in solar power when
my ROI is 5 years or less (without defraying the cost onto some other taxpayer
through a subsidy). Let me know when that is feasible.
I have not made my opinion as of yet on the topic. However, I did notice a
logical inconsistency of Sara Baldwin Auck, Utah Clean Energy senior policy and
regulatory associate. She said, "It should not be the policy of Utah to
interfere in the market and stifle competition. Instead, Utah should continue
to encourage personal investments in energy efficiency and renewable
energy."At the beginning of the article, the author wrote,
"Rocky Mountain Power claims that under current state regulations, the
company is required to credit customers for excess generation at the full retail
rate..."Auck said she doesn't want Utah policy to intefere
with the market. However, Utah policy is already intefering with the market by
forcing the power company to crediting net-metering people more than they would
like. Really, Auck is saying, she currently likes the way the government has
interfered because it helps her cause. I don't disagree with Auck that
people, such as herself, should be reimbursed for the energy they provide. I do
disagree with how she states her opinion, because it makes it sound like she is
promoting less government (something most Utah residents like) when she is not.
RMP and their friends and supporters in this debate need to step back and look
at the bigger picture. I'll attempt to show them.We all use
electricity and nat gas.We all want to reduce pollution from combustion
related methods of making electricity.We all want to promote sustainable
and enviromentally friendly ways of making electricity.There are other
ideals we all want as far as power for our industries and homes.So RMP
should support those (few) of us who buy a solar panel array for our home's
roof. Looking at the big picture, RMP should get on the solar band wagon and
cover any and all of their buildings' roofs with solar panels, they should
join in a cooperative way any and all groups that operate rooftop systems. And
RMP should spread the cost of designing, developing new voltage controls to
accomodate the variability of solar (and wind) power, spread that cost over all
users, or better yet over the stockholders.RMP does need money to
operate their system; RMP deserves a return on their investment; RMP does not
have a good reason to hit the wallets of the rooftop solar innovators.
re FitzMurray, UTSomehow, those that think it is fair for
individuals to get retail rates for excess power generated from solar and wind
power at their residences need to look at the whole picture. They currently are
myopic.-----While all the points you make are correct,
you need to look at the whole picture. These people are contributing to cleaner
air for all of us. These people are paying early (higher) prices for solar
technology. If this industry is to grow, the early adopters will be needed. They
are paving the way for the rest of us.Natural resources are finite
and I appreciate cleaner air. I am willing to pay slightly higher rates to pay
to encourage early adopters of solar technology.
I don't know how smart it is to spend $28,000 to save $130-$180 per month.
The payoff, discounting considerable ongoing maintenance, is 155 to 215 summer
months, or 26-36 years, assuming 6 months of a/c use. Those are very rough
figures but that's still not a very financially savvy strategy. The
reason solar energy has not been more widely used is simple economics- it's
still way too expensive even when it's generated on economies of scale and
has to be subsidized by unwilling taxpayers. The future may bring improvements
in solar generation but the future is not here now. Personally, I'm waiting
until we can capture lightening in a bottle- with the recent announcement of
advanced chemical storage batteries, that is likely closer than widespread
Should I pay more at the store for lettuce if I also have a home garden, too?
These large corporations are silly for trying to convince the general population
that somehow an "invisible subsidy" is being affected for when they
generate their own electricity. And then translate this "invisible
subsidy" into a dollar amount that qualifies as a rate increase? If
customers sold the electricity they generate, then I could see a conflict. But
generating and using their own energy? Utah is doing the right thing by
investigating these dubious claims, and correctly rewarding consumers who are
smarter than the system and -- more importantly -- financially able to put in a
$28,000 solar panel system. Give the guy credit. He made a smart investment!
Hopefully more people can do likewise!
The "subsidized" argument is nonsense. It's just a
divide-and-conquer tactic. Make the average customer jealous at those who have
invested in solar installations, so they can get their rate increase. In fact,
having power distributed on the retail-customer grid means that the utility
doesn't need to spend additional money on infrastructure to bring power to
the grid from elsewhere. That money would make them more money.Utilities generally get granted rates on an investment "cost plus"
basis. In these days of low interest rates, they'd love to be able to
invest lots more in plant and lines so they can make whatever the public utility
commission will allow them to on their investment, typically 6% or more
annually. Also, those last few kilowatt-hours that they would otherwise have to
buy on the emergency/peak market are super-expensive, and an additional source
of revenue/markup. And those residential solar generators are spoiling their
Power companies should only have to pay net-metering companies the same
wholesale rate that they pay to any other provider. But, then again,
I would be happy to see the dinosaur utility companies go extinct by having each
consumer source their own utilities wherever possible and to the extent
The proposed rate change is based on absolutely absurd reasoning.The
net-metering tariff only keeps track of how much power was pushed into the grid.
The home-owner uses most of it immediately. If they make a little extra, the
meter runs backward. If not, it runs forward. It is NET metering.RMP benefits because the excess power made comes at a time when need is
greatest (peak solar power output coincides almost perfectly with peak
air-conditioning demand). Solar actually smooths RMP's demand spikes. If
you follow RMP's reasoning, THEY should actually PAY people spending
$28,000 (for the totally FREE solar infrastructure they provide the grid). Letting them use the power they generate seems pretty reasonable.Plus solar is clean. Every solar system helps get rid of the inversion.
Plus solar distributes power production, making it harder to take down. Those
with solar on the roof should be hailed as heros. We need more solar, not less.
Net metering folks should not be subsidizedby the ratepayers who in many
cases are on fixed income. The utility laws need to be updatedto
Somehow, those that think it is fair for individuals to get retail rates for
excess power generated from solar and wind power at their residences need to
look at the whole picture. They currently are myopic.For homeowners
to sell power back to the power company, they need to sell it on the power grid.
Yet the homeowners do not pay for designing, maintaining, building, or
operating the grid. Yet they want full retail payments for power they generate?
That is both naive and unfair. If they go off the grid and generate 100% of
their own power, great, go for it. If they are using the local power companies
power lines, then they should pay a fee for the use of the local power companies
lines. That is only fair. But then those that want to sell excess
power, but not pay for the use of the lines, they could always go through the
same process that every power generation company does, they can design, get
approval from the State, buy the right-of-way, build, maintain, and operate
their own grid.
What they need to do is follow the path that Questar Gas did and
"de-couple" the infrastructure cost from variable cost of natural gas.
I use very little natural gas in my home, but still pay a $5 per month
connection fee. RMP should do something similar to this.What RMP is
NOT publicizing is how having so much distributed solar throughout its service
territory actually bolsters their overall system, especially during peak load
times when the sun is shining and everyone has their air conditioning on. RMP
typically has to buy power at the highest rates during these peak times, but
private solar panels curb their need to make those purchases because that is
when the panels are producing the most power.As a public service
monopoly, RMP needs to be working on behalf of its ratepayers -- not just their
shareholders. At a time when we have excessive air pollution and
tightening water resources, solar producers are contributing to better air
quality and reduced water use (less reliance on coal-fired steam plants), and
those solar owners should be recognized/compensated for their reductions in
overall pollution and water use in the state.
" approximately 2,200 customers like Rossetti who are residential energy
producers are being subsidized unfairly by customers who do not produce
power."Yes, that is exactly what every government solar program
has done, and every solar provider has reaped big benefits. They have taken from
everyone to make money on solar. So why is Solyndra good when they
do it and a home owner evil when he does it? Sounds like crony capitalism to me.
"Are rate changes needed for customers who generate their own power?"No.
All across the country power companies are trying to slow the adoption of solar
power by home owners. They use a number of "good" reasons for this but
the real reason is that the use of solar panels by home owners is a disruptive
technology for their monopoly. The fairness issue is interesting
because there is a real debate about whether net metering for home owners costs
the utility or pays them. There are reduced infrastructure costs for the utility
when solar panels are in use. Solar panels have a close match to the highest
need for power by the utility. Both are at their highest on hot summer days. The
thing is no one knows what to count and not count. Until there is agreement on
that, no one can know whether the current rates are fair or not.Something that is known is that taxpayers have spent billions on getting us to
the point that solar power is cost effective for the individual home owner. As
soon as this happens the power companies do all they can to make sure it is not.
Now is that fair?
I don't produce power. I don't think it unfair to encourage people who
do. Early adopters will pave the way for the rest of us to do this eventually as
prices for this technology decreases.
Oh, the humanity! Rocky Mountain Power, now concerned with "treating
customers fairly," while they lobby for yet another rate increase.
simplified, the argument they are making is if enough people switch, then the
variable income would drop to a point that it wouldn't cover the fixed