Nevada Assembly passes solar-energy consumer rights, fees

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • MikRo Draper, UT
    May 24, 2017 10:12 a.m.

    Think about the numbers: With my solar system, I occasionally overproduce. Where does the excess power go? Out to the corner of my lot, across a couple of bolts owned by RMP, and directly into my neighbor's house. What does RMP charge my neighbor for that excess energy? Full price. How much has RMP proposed to compensate people like me for that excess energy? Less than half the lowest retail rate. So RMP is making a lot of money from folks like me and yet they've spent nothing! (Those bolts are there regardless of whether someone has solar or not.)

    Sure, at some point, there will be enough residential solar that some form of storage and distribution accommodation will be required, but monopolistic companies like RMP should be planning for that future rather than actively discouraging private investment in renewable energy as Nevada has done. RMP (aka Berkshire-Hathaway) is not very interested in doing that since they not only own power production and distribution but also the coal mines and rail systems – it's in their interest to maintain that monopoly so they can continue to cash in on energy production while being in one of the top states with solar potential.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    May 24, 2017 9:57 a.m.

    What in Tucket? said: "It is a bad idea. It will triple energy costs in Nevada with no benefit. An M IT professor said no matter what we do we can only limit climate change .2 degrees by 2100."

    Sorry, but you have claimed over and over that Climate Change is a hoax, so you can't suddenly be a believer if it fits your cherry picked opinions.

    ...and as natural gas gets used up, it's price will increase.

    The price for Solar will continue to drop with new tech, lets keep moving forward.

    Continually looking for the cheapest thing we can burn for energy, is barely removed from our caveman ancestors.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    May 24, 2017 9:33 a.m.

    It is a bad idea. It will triple energy costs in Nevada with no benefit. An M IT professor said no matter what we do we can only limit climate change .2 degrees by 2100. Solar's true cost is 5-10 times more than natural gas.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 24, 2017 7:56 a.m.

    Great Idea, This makes America great when we don't let monopolies run wild over the citizens they serve, and they do serve us, not the other way around Mike.

    Businesses are not a right, they are a privilege, and licensed as such.

    I got an idea for those who hate solar...don't buy it, in fact why aren't you investing in coal, put you money where your ideals are.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 24, 2017 5:27 a.m.

    So, Nevada thinks that it is a good idea to force the power companies to pay a rate of 95% to anyone who taps into the grid and produces electricity. Do power companies pay other power companies that rate when they buy electricity? Does anyone who has ever studied economics 101 think that forcing power companies to subsidize solar makes economic sense?

    Recently I ran the numbers on a solar system for my house. Just the battery bank alone had a maintenance cost of over $0.12 per kilowatt hour. That does not even take into consideration the disposal of highly toxic batteries.

    When government interferes, the people suffer. Just who is going to really pay the 95% rate through higher rates - or will Nevada demand that power companies suffer a loss?

  • Middle of the road Mormon South Jordan, UT
    May 23, 2017 11:50 p.m.

    Well I would like to see how GOP members will try and spin this into a bad idea since it was pushed by democrats from Las Vegas.

    Kuddos to them.