Utility Fees (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

KenDckey -> Utility Fees (8/19/2015 4:03:14 AM)

Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.

Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 6:50:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses.



What fees are you speaking of? Building permits? Increased property tax reflecting the increased value of your property?





quote:

Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.


Power companies are essential as the grid which distributes both domestic and public generated electricity. The building boom and the resulting cleaner air are happening as we speak.
It is not my job to make the president happy, it is his job to make me happy...isn't that why we hired him?


quote:

Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


The target store near me has just installed a bank of Tesla batteries to run their store during the day while recharging them at night when the rates are lower.
The Chinese have lowered the price of production of solar panels to just over .50 cents per watt.



KenDckey -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 7:08:00 AM)

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2015/08/17/california-utilities-copy-arizona-utilities-solar-panel-fees/31877997/

AZ being basically a Republican State and California being a Democratic State.




Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 7:22:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2015/08/17/california-utilities-copy-arizona-utilities-solar-panel-fees/31877997/

AZ being basically a Republican State and California being a Democratic State.



It would appear that the fees we are speaking of here are being sought by the power companies subject to the monopoly board approving them which may not float. They have to find some way to justify those charges. The kicker here is that the power companies may be shooting themselves in the foot. If the domestic producers opt for and inverter/battery set up then the power company gets noting. Tesla has brought the li-ion battery to the market at a price point that is more than competitive($2,500). New technologies in solar panels (stuff currently in production at low scale) will reduce the .50 cent per watt to less than .10



kdsub -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 8:45:38 AM)

Ken I read where if there were to be a boon in solar energy we would not need to depend on China for the rear metals needed. What I don't understand is why with the writing on the wall about the finite amount of economically available oil, energy companies are not leading the way in alternate fuels. I sure would if i were in the industry.

Butch



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 11:10:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Ken I read where if there were to be a boon in solar energy we would not need to depend on China for the rear metals needed. What I don't understand is why with the writing on the wall about the finite amount of economically available oil, energy companies are not leading the way in alternate fuels. I sure would if i were in the industry.

Butch


The energy companies are heavily involved in alternative sources of energy.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:21:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.
Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


Gunny brought up an important point. The power companies maintain the electrical grid. Unless you are going off-grid completely, you are still relying on the grid, even if just for emergency backup. Anyone relying on the grid should also bear fiscal responsibility for grid maintenance, shouldn't they?

How that fiscal responsibility is divvied up, however, is another matter altogether. It can't be solely based on usage, as that doesn't take into account those who only rely on the grid only for emergency power (the grid has to be maintained whether you're actually using it or not). Additionally, if you produce more power than you use and send that back to the grid, you should bear fiscal responsibility for grid upkeep, too.

The fee associated with grid maintenance should not be higher for those who have a reduced usage due to self-generation than it is for those who rely on the grid 100%.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:33:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
]

Gunny brought up an important point. The power companies maintain the electrical grid. Unless you are going off-grid completely, you are still relying on the grid, even if just for emergency backup. Anyone relying on the grid should also bear fiscal responsibility for grid maintenance, shouldn't they?


Absolutely not. I am a net supplier of power. I sell it to the power company. It is not my responsibility to supply them a warehouse to store it in.

quote:


How that fiscal responsibility is divvied up, however, is another matter altogether. It can't be solely based on usage, as that doesn't take into account those who only rely on the grid only for emergency power (the grid has to be maintained whether you're actually using it or not). Additionally, if you produce more power than you use and send that back to the grid, you should bear fiscal responsibility for grid upkeep, too.

The fee associated with grid maintenance should not be higher for those who have a reduced usage due to self-generation than it is for those who rely on the grid 100%.


The power company is a government monopoly that is guaranteed a fixed profit in exchange for being the only game in town. The cost of the grid has been figured and paid by the rate payers who utilize Edison power. As a vendor to the system, grid maintenance is not my responsibility.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Gunny brought up an important point. The power companies maintain the electrical grid. Unless you are going off-grid completely, you are still relying on the grid, even if just for emergency backup. Anyone relying on the grid should also bear fiscal responsibility for grid maintenance, shouldn't they?

Absolutely not. I am a net supplier of power. I sell it to the power company. It is not my responsibility to supply them a warehouse to store it in.
quote:

How that fiscal responsibility is divvied up, however, is another matter altogether. It can't be solely based on usage, as that doesn't take into account those who only rely on the grid only for emergency power (the grid has to be maintained whether you're actually using it or not). Additionally, if you produce more power than you use and send that back to the grid, you should bear fiscal responsibility for grid upkeep, too.
The fee associated with grid maintenance should not be higher for those who have a reduced usage due to self-generation than it is for those who rely on the grid 100%.

The power company is a government monopoly that is guaranteed a fixed profit in exchange for being the only game in town. The cost of the grid has been figured and paid by the rate payers who utilize Edison power. As a vendor to the system, grid maintenance is not my responsibility.


Really? You don't ever draw any power from the grid? Ever? Being a net supplier doesn't mean you don't use the grid. The grid allows you to sell your power back to the grid, so you're still using the grid.





Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:42:03 PM)

If I make ten K of electricity and use five the net has supplied none of my electricity and I have sold them five K of electricity. I am doing them the favor by selling them power.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:50:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
If I make ten K of electricity and use five the net has supplied none of my electricity and I have sold them five K of electricity. I am doing them the favor by selling them power.


If you make 100kW during the day, and use 1W from the grid at night, you're still using the grid. You're getting paid for your net generation portion, aren't you?

Go off-grid completely if you don't want to participate in grid maintenance.



joether -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 12:56:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.

Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


We as a nation tried that. It was called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It saw....TOTAL....Republican/Tea Party opposition. The conservative media sites run misinformation campaigns about it 24/7 for like two years (oh....the whole of the law's life....). One of the major concepts of that bill that all of you never read, was to allow incentive programs for Americans to switch to 'renewable power sources'.

Germany, has twice as many solar power stations than the United States, yet receives less sun light in a year. Two of the top three states in America are located in New England for solar energy production (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). One would think places like Texas, Florida (that 'sunshine state'), and Mississippi would benefit from solar energy production. And they dont, because they are Republican 'dumb' states.

The reason the President pushed for renewable technology, was to help revive the poor economy in 2008-2011, and make America the 'go to place' for renewable technology. Perhaps creating another 'Dot Com' era in America. Most of you on this forum were against the bill because you were told to think of it as a 'spending bill'. You didn't understand then, nor now, WHY, we as a nation did that process.

If your even remotely curious, look up Elon Musk's Tesla system. He released a youtube video about the product at the start of the year. A rather curious device that could help people on energy requirements that are not....normal.




joether -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 1:01:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2015/08/17/california-utilities-copy-arizona-utilities-solar-panel-fees/31877997/

AZ being basically a Republican State and California being a Democratic State.



It would appear that the fees we are speaking of here are being sought by the power companies subject to the monopoly board approving them which may not float. They have to find some way to justify those charges. The kicker here is that the power companies may be shooting themselves in the foot. If the domestic producers opt for and inverter/battery set up then the power company gets noting. Tesla has brought the li-ion battery to the market at a price point that is more than competitive($2,500). New technologies in solar panels (stuff currently in production at low scale) will reduce the .50 cent per watt to less than .10


Tesla's idea, while curious does have its drawbacks. I'm not going to explain them here. Its a technical discussion above most minds here. Lets just say 'dont believe everything Mr. Musk states about the technology' and leave it at that.

I do however (even with the drawbacks understood) think its a step in the right direction. Its helping to solve a problem, with technology, fueled by a source of raw energy this planet gets every 24 hour period. As with all technology, an improvement just a few short years away could change energy circumstances and problems world-wide.



joether -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 1:10:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.
Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


Gunny brought up an important point. The power companies maintain the electrical grid. Unless you are going off-grid completely, you are still relying on the grid, even if just for emergency backup. Anyone relying on the grid should also bear fiscal responsibility for grid maintenance, shouldn't they?

How that fiscal responsibility is divvied up, however, is another matter altogether. It can't be solely based on usage, as that doesn't take into account those who only rely on the grid only for emergency power (the grid has to be maintained whether you're actually using it or not). Additionally, if you produce more power than you use and send that back to the grid, you should bear fiscal responsibility for grid upkeep, too.

The fee associated with grid maintenance should not be higher for those who have a reduced usage due to self-generation than it is for those who rely on the grid 100%.


It should be noted that the majority of energy infrastructure in this nation is using 1950's technology. The energy companies have been very slow to make updates, since it would eat into their bottom line. Why would they wish to do something on the benefit of the United States of America, when it effects their profit?

However, bring up that infrastructure to 2015 technology and standards would create a real savings on 'energy lost'. Meaning, more energy is produced while not straining current system, and thus, lowering costs. But lowering costs for all people would mean...LESS REVENUE. Less revenue directly translates into less gross profit which yet again translates into less net profit. Why would a business want less net profit? Even though it would be good for America?

The only way this happens, is if the US Government forces these companies to update their systems. For that to happen, would take an act by Congress. You really think with Republicans in control of Congress that will happen?

Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 2:02:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
It should be noted that the majority of energy infrastructure in this nation is using 1950's technology. The energy companies have been very slow to make updates, since it would eat into their bottom line. Why would they wish to do something on the benefit of the United States of America, when it effects their profit?
However, bring up that infrastructure to 2015 technology and standards would create a real savings on 'energy lost'. Meaning, more energy is produced while not straining current system, and thus, lowering costs. But lowering costs for all people would mean...LESS REVENUE. Less revenue directly translates into less gross profit which yet again translates into less net profit. Why would a business want less net profit? Even though it would be good for America?
The only way this happens, is if the US Government forces these companies to update their systems. For that to happen, would take an act by Congress. You really think with Republicans in control of Congress that will happen?


But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.

quote:

Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.


As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.



joether -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 3:00:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.


Who do you think created all the laws those energy companies have to follow in the first place?

Go look it up if you don't believe me....

Start with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, in the US Constitution and go forward 220+ years of legal text.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.

As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.


From the stand point of the company, not the government. The two entities are separate in this manner of law. The government, to which you gain benefits from (directly and otherwise), buys energy from those companies. Therefore, your taxes go to help pay for the government's usage of that energy from the company. You might be off the grid, but your STILL be protected by the police, fire, hospitals, and such. Your kids go to the schools, parks, and playgrounds. You drive on the roads under those street lamps. All of these using energy provide by the local power company.

I'll give you credit, were credit is due. You tried to assume that if you were off the grid, you wouldn't have to pay taxes either. Nice try! Didn't work, but nice try all the same.....



MrRodgers -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 5:25:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
]

Gunny brought up an important point. The power companies maintain the electrical grid. Unless you are going off-grid completely, you are still relying on the grid, even if just for emergency backup. Anyone relying on the grid should also bear fiscal responsibility for grid maintenance, shouldn't they?


Absolutely not. I am a net supplier of power. I sell it to the power company. It is not my responsibility to supply them a warehouse to store it in.

quote:


How that fiscal responsibility is divvied up, however, is another matter altogether. It can't be solely based on usage, as that doesn't take into account those who only rely on the grid only for emergency power (the grid has to be maintained whether you're actually using it or not). Additionally, if you produce more power than you use and send that back to the grid, you should bear fiscal responsibility for grid upkeep, too.

The fee associated with grid maintenance should not be higher for those who have a reduced usage due to self-generation than it is for those who rely on the grid 100%.


The power company is a government monopoly that is guaranteed a fixed profit in exchange for being the only game in town. The cost of the grid has been figured and paid by the rate payers who utilize Edison power. As a vendor to the system, grid maintenance is not my responsibility.


The question becomes what do you get for being that 'net supplier' of power vis-a-vis the grid. It being the only vehicle to do so, the rate payers built and pay for the grid yet your over-supply, buy-back opportunity depends on that.

So to the extent to which you ever use the grid, buy or sell, what one pays to be attached, is to include that maintenance.

Oh and there are fees, laws and lobbying for more, going on all over the country to stop or minimize competition from solar panels. It's called the profit motive which addicts the investor class to a profit, the highest profit right now...using fossil fuels as may be required.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 5:45:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.

Who do you think created all the laws those energy companies have to follow in the first place?
Go look it up if you don't believe me....
Start with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, in the US Constitution and go forward 220+ years of legal text.


I'm not convinced, Joether. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this, except that you'll probably agree we won't come to an agreement. lol

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.

As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.

From the stand point of the company, not the government. The two entities are separate in this manner of law. The government, to which you gain benefits from (directly and otherwise), buys energy from those companies. Therefore, your taxes go to help pay for the government's usage of that energy from the company. You might be off the grid, but your STILL be protected by the police, fire, hospitals, and such. Your kids go to the schools, parks, and playgrounds. You drive on the roads under those street lamps. All of these using energy provide by the local power company.
I'll give you credit, were credit is due. You tried to assume that if you were off the grid, you wouldn't have to pay taxes either. Nice try! Didn't work, but nice try all the same.....


You're such an idiot. If a person is off the grid, he should not have to pay anything to the utility companies. That doesn't include taxes. How fucking stupid can you get? Wait. Don't answer that question.

This is the bullshit you always do, Joether. This discussion is about fees customers pay to a utility company. Those that use less because they generate their own power are assessed a fee (by the utility) for their share of the cost of maintaining the grid. This discussion is not about taxes. How you make the leap that my belief that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay the utility a fee for grid maintenance also means that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay taxes to government is beyond me.

I guess I just can't stop enough neural activity to be that idiotic.





MrRodgers -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 6:07:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.

Who do you think created all the laws those energy companies have to follow in the first place?
Go look it up if you don't believe me....
Start with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, in the US Constitution and go forward 220+ years of legal text.


I'm not convinced, Joether. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this, except that you'll probably agree we won't come to an agreement. lol

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.

As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.

From the stand point of the company, not the government. The two entities are separate in this manner of law. The government, to which you gain benefits from (directly and otherwise), buys energy from those companies. Therefore, your taxes go to help pay for the government's usage of that energy from the company. You might be off the grid, but your STILL be protected by the police, fire, hospitals, and such. Your kids go to the schools, parks, and playgrounds. You drive on the roads under those street lamps. All of these using energy provide by the local power company.
I'll give you credit, were credit is due. You tried to assume that if you were off the grid, you wouldn't have to pay taxes either. Nice try! Didn't work, but nice try all the same.....


You're such an idiot. If a person is off the grid, he should not have to pay anything to the utility companies. That doesn't include taxes. How fucking stupid can you get? Wait. Don't answer that question.

This is the bullshit you always do, Joether. This discussion is about fees customers pay to a utility company. Those that use less because they generate their own power are assessed a fee (by the utility) for their share of the cost of maintaining the grid. This discussion is not about taxes. How you make the leap that my belief that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay the utility a fee for grid maintenance also means that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay taxes to government is beyond me.

I guess I just can't stop enough neural activity to be that idiotic.




He doesn't understand apparently, that the mere existence of the grid sets certain requirements upon society for having the availability.

So there is a hook-up fee for the builder, recouped at the sale. Then there is a fee just for being a customer (gas and water too) so nobody is ever totally off the grid or any system by virtue of still actually being hooked-up. I pay so much a month to elec. etc. just for being hooked up and is a separate line item.

These 'fees' are static. To the extent to which I use, don't use or return power to the grid is subject to the rate paid by everybody who does the same.




Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 9:48:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you make 100kW during the day, and use 1W from the grid at night, you're still using the grid. You're getting paid for your net generation portion, aren't you?


The 1w was mine. You are suggesting that I pay them for not selling them my one watt?
The power company is a government monopoly that is guaranteed a fixed profit in exchange for being the only game in town. The cost of the grid has been figured and paid by the rate payers who utilize that public utility. As a vendor to the system, grid maintenance is not my responsibility.

quote:

Go off-grid completely if you don't want to participate in grid maintenance.


That is the point. The power companies are seeking a new revenue stream. To get that stream they have to convince the PUC that it is justified. Since the grid is already funded how does one do that in the face of vocal opposition. For me the few dollars a year that they would pay me is not going to make any difference in my lifestyle. If it comes to that then I will just unplug them.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02