quote:

No you didn't. You claimed that your access fee pays for grid maintenance. Not simply accepting your word, your claim means nothing without proof.

quote:

LMMFAO!!!! The article was about storage capacity needs. While the current drought is limiting that one storage location, it doesn't let domestic suppliers off the hook for their responsibilities. Had Edison not build that hydro plant and only either sold excess at a loss, or ramped up/down, you'd have had stability,

quote:

It's computer controlled? Really? So, no one has to make a decision to ramp up/down to maintain stability? Really?

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

quote:

No you didn't. You claimed that your access fee pays for grid maintenance. Not simply accepting your word, your claim means nothing without proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Paying for access to the grid allows you to be connected, to draw power when you need it (and to sell it).

Does your power company pay you for both generation and distribution? In my area (which may or may not operate under the same rules as yours), if you sell your excess to the grid, you are paid only for the generation, but not the distribution portion. So, if I sell 8kW to the grid during the day, and use 8kW from the grid at night, it's not a net even exchange. There would still be charges for the distribution of that 8kW you used. The generation portion would net out, but not the distribution portion.

You don't want to pay for grid maintenance. We all get it. So, wtf does it matter to you if the rest of the grid loses out on the "cheap" source of power you're selling?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

You aren't paying them for using the grid when you push power onto the grid.

I most certainly am. I am doing it as we speak.
Why you fail to notice the number of times I have mentioned that I pay an access fee every month for the grid. It is not rate based as you have tried to claim. They have applied for PUC authorization to charge me double. It has not been approved.

quote:

The company has repeatedly addressed the need to update rates, saying such change is needed so that nonsolar customers don’t pay a disproportionate share of fixed costs to maintain the power grid as more customers install solar.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

LMMFAO!!!! The article was about storage capacity needs. While the current drought is limiting that one storage location, it doesn't let domestic suppliers off the hook for their responsibilities. Had Edison not build that hydro plant and only either sold excess at a loss, or ramped up/down, you'd have had stability,

That is not true. The article pointed out that Big Canyon was built for the very purpose of grid stabilization. That ramping and selling low were expensive problems and this was a cheap fix. There was never a question of not building it.
As for letting domestic suppliers off the hook we currently are not on the hook. We currently pay one access fee not two.
but you'd probably still be bitching about them wanting domestic suppliers to pay for the instability they add.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

"Southern California Edison announced its proposal to the Public Utilities Commission Aug. 3. It is essentially the same proposal Arizona regulators will consider this week from APS: a monthly $3-per-kilowatt fee based on the capacity of a customer’s solar panels.

That means a customer with a 4-kilowatt system pays $12 a month and one with a 10-kilowatt system pays $30.

SCE’s proposal goes a step further than the current APS plan and tweaks the net-metering calculation in which customers get credit for power they send to the grid.

Rather than credit customers one full retail kilowatt hour for every one they send to the grid, SCE wants to compensate customers based on what that power would cost to purchase from other sources.

SCE proposes 7 cents a kilowatt hour, plus 1 cent per kilowatt hour to recognize the renewable-power’s contribution to state requirements.

That 8 cents per kilowatt hour is less than the “super off-peak” rate of 11 cents per kilowatt charged by the utility for residential power, and much less than the 36-46 cents charged for on-peak power by that utility."

quote:

So, Big Canyon was a cheaper alternative to ramping and selling excess. Doesn't that mean that ramping and selling excess would provide (at a higher cost) grid stability? That's precisely what I was saying.

quote:


Derp

quote:

Right, you aren't on the hook, though your inputs are adding difficulty to maintaining grid stability.

quote:

The utilities want you to pay your fair share (which would be like putting you on the hook).