Corporate Interests Punish Solar Power Users

[donnay]

Corporate Interests Punish Solar Power Users

ALEC in the News: Oklahoma Punishes Solar Power Users; Wisconsin Voter ID Law Overturned


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s3aRdoEkts#t=36

Through a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, the billionaire Koch brothers have helped advance a number of state laws that benefit corporate and right-wing interests. An internal document shows ALEC is tracking 131 bills which, among other issues, seek to roll back renewable energy standards, combat federal coal regulations and tout the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. ALEC's efforts recently paid off in Oklahoma where Gov. Mary Fallin has signed a measure allowing utilities to charge customers who generate energy from solar panels or small wind turbines. ALEC's victory in Oklahoma comes as a federal judge has struck down a voter ID law in Wisconsin, saying it unfairly targeted the poor and people of color. ALEC has been exposed as the secretive powerhouse behind voter ID laws and other right-wing initiatives across the country, thanks largely to the reporting of our guest, Lisa Graves, president of the newly merged The Progressive magazine and the Center for Media and Democracy.

http://financearmageddon.blogspot.com/2014/04/corporate-interest-punish-solar-power.html

[dannno]

Mary Fallin has signed a measure allowing utilities to charge customers who generate energy from solar panels or small wind turbines.

How do they know how much energy you generate?

[aGameOfThrones]

How do they know how much energy you generate?

They connect it to the house which is connected to the grid, so if you make more power than you use from the sun it puts your power meter in reverse.

[angelatc]

Koch bashing? On RPF?


An internal document shows ALEC is tracking 131 bills which, among other issues, seek to roll back renewable energy standards, combat federal coal regulations and tout the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline

Those bastards - trying to keep the dumbasses in Washington from astronomically driving up energy costs. Whatever shall we do?

I know - lets find some fat liberal who doesn't own a comb to interview and put it on the YouTube!


Lisa Graves, president of the newly merged The Progressive magazine and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Seems legit. But hey - if it's on YouTube...it has to be true, right?

[angelatc]

They connect it to the house which is connected to the grid, so if you make more power than you use from the sun it puts your power meter in reverse.

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x746497021/Solar-and-wind-power-fee-generates-flap


The Obama administration is pushing for the development of green power, including wind and solar energy, and on its face, Senate Bill 1456 seems to run counterintuitive to the movement toward expanding energy sources.

OMG - they're racists!!!



The bill essentially creates a new customer class, as it will allow the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to establish higher base customer charge for customers who use solar or wind power. The higher charge will be used to defray infrastructure costs to send the excess electricity back to the grid.


So fat liberals that do not have combs are getting the costs of their solar panels subsidized by the federal government, and now they're pissed because they might have to pay for the changes to the system at their residences that will be required to safely send their extra power back into the system?

Oh yeah, I should totally pay those costs too. Obviously people who aren't using solar / wind should pay for those things they aren't using, because KOCH.

[HOLLYWOOD]

How do they know how much energy you generate?

http://kwout.com/cutout/b/ne/ff/ehr_bor.jpg

Rachel Maddow unleashes on Oklahoma's 'sun tax' but misses context | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/24/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-unleashes-oklahomas-sun-tax-misses-c/)


Then this: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-electric-utilities-want-higher-rate-for-solar-wind-energy-producers/article/4083525

Oklahoma electric utilities want higher rate for solar, wind energy producers

Senate Bill 1456 allows regulated utilities to apply to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to charge a higher base rate to customers who generate solar and wind energy and send their excess power back into the grid. The bill passed the Legislature and is on Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk
Oklahoma Utilities Hit Homes Using Solar With Extra Fee

Bobby Magill, ClimateCentral.org Published: Apr 24, 2014, 0:33 AM EDT From our partners
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/04/c8477405-3606-42e0-8ed3-da3d1ca5c867_650x366.jpg
U.S. Department of Energy
A rooftop solar installation is pictured.



Anyone living in Oklahoma planning to power their home using a rooftop solar panel will soon be charged a fee for the right to do that while still being connected to the local power grid.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed the "solar surcharge" bill (http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB1456&Session=1400) into law on Monday, permitting utilities to charge an extra fee to any customer using distributed power generation, such as rooftop solar or a small wind turbine.
Distributed generation is seen in many parts of the country (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/microgrids-a-way-to-keep-rockaways-lights-on-in-next-storm-16652) as a way for cities and homeowners to modernize their power system and become more resilient in the face of extreme weather, brought about in part by climate change. Rooftop solar and wind turbines generate clean energy to help to keep homes’ lights on when the power grid fails.
Oklahoma's new law states (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1456%20ENR.PDF) that it is aiming to prevent the majority of utility customers from "subsidizing" those with solar panels on their homes who offset the cost of electricity and grid maintenance costs by generating their own power and feeding it onto the grid and receiving credit for the power they generate.
The practice of utility customers providing home-generated power (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/business/energy-environment/utilities-confront-fresh-threat-do-it-yourself-power.html?_r=1&) to the grid and receiving credits for the power they produce is called "net metering," (http://www.dsireusa.org/solar/solarpolicyguide/?id=17) and is legal in most states (http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Net_Metering_map.pdf). But, it is something the electric power industry considers a threat to traditional utilities (http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf), which use centralized power sources that distribute electricity to customers via the power grid.
"Right now, a distributed generation customer is really paying less for the maintenance of the infrastructure than our other customers," despite the up-front costs of installing solar panels on a roof, said Kathleen O'Shea, spokeswoman for Oklahoma Gas and Electric, or OGE, one of the state's largest utilities.
Of OGE's 800,000 customers, between 200 and 400 of them use rooftop solar or wind, she said.
"As solar prices come down (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/cheap-solar-power-pushes-renewables-growth-worldwide-17272) and this becomes more popular, we want to make sure everybody who's using the grid is paying their fair share," she said, adding that it’s unfair for the utility's traditional customers -- roughly 799,600 of them -- to foot the bill for grid maintenance when several hundred people end up saving money by using their own solar panels to provide power to the utility while not paying the grid maintenance surcharge.
"It's kind of like, let's get this done now before we are suddenly having 20,000 customers," O'Shea said.
While OGE and other utilities say it's unfair that wind and solar owners aren't being charged for grid maintenance, those owners aren't getting compensated for the excess clean power they put into the grid for everyone else to use. And it doesn't take into account the upfront costs of installing solar panels or wind turbines themselves.
*******

Here's how it works if you're an Oklahoma OGE customer today, according to OGE's net energy billing schedule (http://www.oge.com/environment/Documents/70.10%20NEBO.pdf): If you own a wind turbine in your yard, the power you produce is metered and feeds into the grid. OGE will give you a power credit on your next monthly bill based on the kilowatt hours of wind power you've supplied to the grid. If your home uses fewer kilowatt hours of electricity than the amount of electricity produced by your wind turbine, OGE bills you for the electricity it provides to you. If your turbine generates more kilowatt hours than your home consumes, OGE will only give you credit for the power you consume and provide no compensation for the excess electricity you've provided to OGE free of charge.

Oklahoma regulators will eventually create a separate utility customer class for people using rooftop solar or small wind turbines so they can be charged separately from traditional customers. Anyone using solar or wind at home before the new law takes effect this fall will be grandfathered in and won’t be charged the new fee.

Clean energy advocates see the new law as an attack on renewable energy in an era when climate change adaptation demands modernizing the country’s electric power systems.
"This legislation is discounting the value of distributed power," said Whitney Pearson, associate field organizer for the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club. "In peak periods like summer months, solar helps reduce demand on the grid when utilities worry most about meeting customer needs."
She said she believes large utility companies are afraid that solar and wind power threaten their business model, so they’ve turned to the state Legislature to discourage property owners from installing their own power generation.
O'Shea said she is unsure what role distributed generation should play in providing electricity to Oklahoma residents in the future, but she said she's sure rooftop solar and wind will be a "big thing for all the electric industry."
"At this point, we’re all still trying to figure out how and when," O'Shea said. "I do know that it's out there, it's coming. It's not something we even want to try and stop.


FYI for those interested World Record Solar Cell with 44.7% Efficiency: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-and-media/press-releases/presseinformationen-2013/world-record-solar-cell-with-44.7-efficiency?set_language=en

[aGameOfThrones]

They won't let you disconnect from the grid either. well, unless you are in debt with them.

[donnay]

That's why it is hard to get off the grid, these billionaires and their lobbyist make sure you are dependent upon their services.

[angelatc]

They won't let you disconnect from the grid either. well, unless you are in debt with them.

I don't know about that. This surcharge they're talking about only applies to people who want to feed their excess power back into the system. If you power your home with wind / solar and send your excess power back to ground (or whatever...) there is no fee.

[angelatc]

That's why it is hard to get off the grid, these billionaires and their lobbyist make sure you are dependent upon their services.

Are you not free to turn off your power and generate your own power?

These people are not looking to get off the grid - they're looking to get the other customers to subsidize their own private little boondoggle.

[jkr]

im TR0N, i fight for the users

[CaptUSA]

If a person is selling their power back through the distribution lines, should they not be charged a fee to do so?

This is weird. If everyone did this, who would pay for the lines? Is it not reasonable to charge for the use of them? Especially, when these people are making money.

If I ship my product to your house, I still have to incur shipping costs.

The problem here is that these people don't understand the split between generation/transmission/distribution. Since these costs are often paired or bundled in the old model, you have to unpair them for people who are generating onto the lines. You can't pay them for the generation AND pay them for transmission and distribution as well! These people are already getting subsidized, they're looking for even greater subsidies.


There is, of course, a way around all of this... However, I don't think many of us are ready to hear it.

[axiomata]

If you use the grid as a giant battery backup you should be charged for that service if even if on net your supply more than you consume.

[CaptUSA]

If you use the grid as a giant battery backup you should be charged for that service if even if on net your supply more than you consume.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. If it's just a backup, then you should just be charged when you use it. But if you're using it to sell power, you are still using it. You are just sending the power the opposite way over their lines.

[axiomata]

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. If it's just a backup, then you should just be charged when you use it. But if you're using it to sell power, you are still using it. You are just sending the power the opposite way over their lines.

It's like insurance.

[donnay]

Are you not free to turn off your power and generate your own power?

These people are not looking to get off the grid - they're looking to get the other customers to subsidize their own private little boondoggle.

What you don't like it when the people turn it around and make money off their excess energy?

Oklahoma Senate passes solar panel surcharge

Oklahoma City, OK, April 22, 2014- Some Oklahoma residents who install solar panels or wind turbines on their property in the future are likely to get hit with a surcharge on their utility bill. Senate Bill 1456 passed 83-5 on Monday, and awaits a signature from Governor Mary Fallon.

The bill, if signed, would authorize utility companies to charge higher base rates to “distributed generation” customers. Distributed generation customers are residents who generate enough electricity through their solar panels and turbines to sell excess energy back to the grid. The utility companies would apply for this authority through the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Oklahoma utility companies support this measure, explaining that the new rate increase will keep prices “fair”. Utility companies justified the bill by explaining that they lose money when they buy excess electricity from these residents and redistribute it to other customers. By creating a new class of customers and charging them an increased rate, they argue that utility companies will reclaim the money they’ve lost.

Continued... (http://www.off-grid.net/2014/04/22/oklahoma-passes-surcharge/)

[HOLLYWOOD]

They won't let you disconnect from the grid either. well, unless you are in debt with them.LOL! Isn't it amazing, run a debt and they disconnect you, but assist with power on the grid which you can't disconnect from and they screw you.

Put the Solar Power converters between the meter and the breaker panel.... cut off the outside SLAVE.

[CaptUSA]

It's like insurance.

Ok, you're talking about the connection (service) fee. That's different. That covers the expense of creating bills (even if they're zero) and maintaining the equipment required to keep the service hooked up. I don't think there's any need to raise that fee if you're not using the power. The ideal way to do this is to pay these people for their generation, but charge them for the distribution and transmission. They won't get as much of an offset, but at least it will be fair to both parties.

[CaptUSA]

What you don't like it when the people turn it around and make money off their excess energy?


No, I think that's fine. But what the power company is doing now is paying these people for their power AND paying those same customers for the privilege of being able to ship it for them! That's craziness!

They should pay them for their generation (ideally at market prices) and then charge them to ship it to other users.

[donnay]

No, I think that's fine. But what the power company is doing now is paying these people for their power AND paying those same customers for the privilege of being able to ship it for them! That's craziness!

They should pay them for their generation (ideally at market prices) and then charge them to ship it to other users.

That's fine but they are charging them a surcharge.


Definition of 'Surcharge'

A fee or other charge that is added to the cost of a good or service. A surcharge is typically added to an existing tax, and may not be included in the stated price of a good or service. It may be a temporary measure to defray the cost of increased commodity pricing, such as with a fuel surcharge, or it may be permanent. A surcharge does not have to be imposed by the government.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/surcharge.asp


Why not just charge a simply line fee?

[specsaregood]

Through a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council

Can somebody explain to me what shadowy group means in this context?
That organization seems pretty sunlit to me:
http://www.alec.org/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/board-of-directors/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/board-of-scholars/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/public-reporting/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/state-chairmen/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/frequently-asked-questions/

Are they secret reptilians? Wait, they must be "shadow people" that must be it!

[donnay]

Can somebody explain to me what shadowy group means in this context?
That organization seems pretty sunlit to me:
http://www.alec.org/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/board-of-directors/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/board-of-scholars/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/public-reporting/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/state-chairmen/
http://www.alec.org/about-alec/frequently-asked-questions/

Are they secret reptilians? Wait, they must be "shadow people" that must be it!

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

The Koch Brothers, big tobacco, insurance companies, and the drug industry: all behind the shadowy corporate front group known as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). On the surface, ALEC is mostly comprised of thousands of state legislators, each paying a nominal fee to attend ALEC retreats and receive model legislation. In reality, corporations pay ALEC a king’s ransom to access legislators to distribute radical legislation that puts corporate interests over American workers and consumers.

So, while the membership appears to be public sector, corporate money dominates ALEC. In fact, public sector membership dues account for only around one percent of ALEC’s annual revenues. ALEC claims to be nonpartisan, but its pro-corporate, anti-consumer mission is clear.

Read about ALEC’s hand in protecting oil companies, chemical manufacturers and Wall Street banks in AAJ’s report here:

Continued... (http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/15044.htm)

[CaptUSA]

That's fine but they are charging them a surcharge.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/surcharge.asp


Why not just charge a simply line fee?Forgive me for being ignorant of Oklahoma's regulations, but I can guarantee you that the problem lies in their structure. They know there is a problem, but they don't know how to fix it. If the rates are bundled, it becomes difficult to unbundle them for this purpose. Also, since the price of generation fluctuates based upon the time of day, it becomes even more difficult to know what the price was when the dist-gen was created.

Really, there are just so many problems with the old regulations. They are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The surcharge is not the right way to handle it, but it is certainly the easiest. It allows them to address some of the problem without addressing any of the underlying causes.

[donnay]

Forgive me for being ignorant of Oklahoma's regulations, but I can guarantee you that the problem lies in their structure. They know there is a problem, but they don't know how to fix it. If the rates are bundled, it becomes difficult to unbundle them for this purpose. Also, since the price of generation fluctuates based upon the time of day, it becomes even more difficult to know what the price was when the dist-gen was created.

Really, there are just so many problems with the old regulations. They are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The surcharge is not the right way to handle it, but it is certainly the easiest. It allows them to address some of the problem without addressing any of the underlying causes.

Thanks for your candor. If I were a person on solar power, I would get off the grid completely. This sounds more like a penalty than anything, especially if you want to sell your surplus energy back to them which they are going to use.

[CaptUSA]

Thanks for your candor. If I were a person on solar power, I would get off the grid completely. This sounds more like a penalty than anything, especially if you want to sell your surplus energy back to them which they are going to use.Yeah, I guess it sounds like that. Really, though, it's about only paying them for generation, but still billing them for the use of the lines to move the power. If they go off the grid entirely, then they won't get this charge. BUT, they also won't get to sell their excess generation.

The problem is that people don't see it. They usually get subsidies to install solar. Then they get paid for excess generation. And, until these charges are implemented, they are getting paid to distribute their excess generation - which they are not doing. They are getting paid for it, but someone else is doing it. That's not the way a free market should work. As always, you can blame the regulations.

[Anti Federalist]

There is, of course, a way around all of this... However, I don't think many of us are ready to hear it.

Go ahead and post them, Capt.

I've been dodging you too long anyways.

You make good points, although I'm still not fully convinced.

[CaptUSA]

Go ahead and post them, Capt.

I've been dodging you too long anyways.

You make good points, although I'm still not fully convinced.I'm scared.

[angelatc]

What you don't like it when the people turn it around and make money off their excess energy?

. (http://www.off-grid.net/2014/04/22/oklahoma-passes-surcharge/)

Funny I didn't see anybody pointing out that the power companies are legally required to buy the excess power. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

The point is that you can't just feed power back along the same lines it came in on. The infastructure has to be modified to accommodate it. Why should the people who are not feeding power back to the electric company be required to pay for those changes?

[donnay]

Funny I didn't see anybody pointing out that the power companies are legally required to buy the excess power. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

The point is that you can't just feed power back along the same lines it came in on. The infastructure has to be modified to accommodate it. Why should the people who are not feeding power back to the electric company be required to pay for those changes?

Why should people providing them with excess energy pay a surcharge. It would seem that the people dependent on it would get the surcharge not the people providing it.

You want to charge a line fee, then make it clear but charge a surcharge to (little) people providing the service is ridiculous.

On my landline phone I am still being charged a surcharge for the Spanish American war. :rolleyes:

[CaptUSA]

The point is that you can't just feed power back along the same lines it came in on.Actually, you can. It doesn't even require special metering (except to monitor the amount delivered/received). It does confuse the planning engineers and the linemen have to be extremely careful, but it works. It's why emergency generators automatically open the breakers - so the power doesn't backfeed. There are safeguards that can be added that incur a cost, though, so you're partly right.

[angelatc]

Actually, you can. It doesn't even require special metering (except to monitor the amount delivered/received). It does confuse the planning engineers and the linemen have to be extremely careful, but it works. It's why emergency generators automatically open the breakers - so the power doesn't backfeed. There are safeguards that can be added that incur a cost, though, so you're partly right.

Yes I know next to nothing about it, except that it we turn our generator on without turning the breaker off, we could fry the lineman, assuming he ever showed up.

I was putting that together with the articles that was posted.

[angelatc]

Why should people providing them with excess energy pay a surcharge. It would seem that the people dependent on it would get the surcharge not the people providing it.

You want to charge a line fee, then make it clear but charge a surcharge to (little) people providing the service is ridiculous.



What part of this is libertarian and free market to you? Forcing the power companies to buy product they don't want? Endlessly subsidizing the people using the most expensive forms of energy available? Making people who aren't using wind and solar pay for the additional costs for modifying the system to accommodate their little "green energy" whims?

According to Politifact, which is pretty liberal, Maddow was
connecting the "sun tax" law to conservative-driven efforts in other states to dial back state-approved benefits for utility customers who use alternative energy sources like small wind turbines and solar panels. (In Oklahoma, wind turbines are more prevalent than solar panels, for the record.)

Conservatives dialing back benefits? Oh the horror!!!

All I want is for people to buy only what they want to buy, and pay for it themselves. Where did you get off that train, and why?

[eduardo89]

What part of this is libertarian and free market to you?

Donnay is not pro-free markets and not just in this instance. She also supports corporatist laws such as the Jones Act and supports government mandates such as mandatory GMO labelling.

[Natural Citizen]

Donnay is not pro-free markets and not just in this instance. She also supports corporatist laws such as the Jones Act and supports government mandates such as mandatory GMO labelling.

Too many throw around the term free market as a substitute for mercantilism. As well, there are those who would support a government force feeding of the people these products of their corporate partners who buy themselves some representation to make it so. Consider the recent partnership between the Koch network and Monsonto along with congressman Mike Pompeo who, together, are introducing legislation that would remove the right of the people to know what they are consuming into their bodies. And with that, a void on the states ability to protect the right of the citizen from government.

And all they are really doing here is removing the choice that the people have. Essentially protecting themselves from the free market. What we have here is mercantilism.

[Natural Citizen]

What part of this is libertarian and free market to you? Forcing the power companies to buy product they don't want? Endlessly subsidizing the people using the most expensive forms of energy available? Making people who aren't using wind and solar pay for the additional costs for modifying the system to accommodate their little "green energy" whims?

According to Politifact, which is pretty liberal, Maddow was

Conservatives dialing back benefits? Oh the horror!!!

All I want is for people to buy only what they want to buy, and pay for it themselves. Where did you get off that train, and why?

angela, you're such a fake. You speak from both sides of your yapper. :)

[Anti Federalist]

I'm scared.

I don't release PM info without permission.

No need to be, we're all pals here. ;)

[angelatc]

angela, you're such a fake. You speak from both sides of your yapper. :)

No, I am always 100% consistent.

But thanks for the personal attack in lieu of having an actual point.

And by the way, mercantilism involved limiting imports (via tariffs) and maximizing exports. Had nothing to do with endless tax subsidies of inefficient energy.


And all they are really doing here is removing the choice that the people have. Essentially protecting themselves from the free market. What we have here is mercantilism.

They aren't removing anything except a subsidy, but if anybody is engaging in anything close to "mercantilism" is your beloved big government that mandates the power companies must buy the power back even if they don't want it. They're preventing the importation of cheap energy, demanding the utility pay more for the power than it cost to acquire elsewhere.

[Natural Citizen]

No, I am always 100% consistent.

But thanks for the personal attack in lieu of having an actual point.



So, you're going to make me bump some threads then? :)

[56ktarget]

This is what happens when we don't get money out of politics.

[eduardo89]

This is what happens when we don't get money out of politics.

No, this is what happens when government has the power to give out special favours.

[PRB]

Through a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, the billionaire Koch brothers have helped advance a number of state laws that benefit corporate and right-wing interests.

Koch hypocrisy, say no to taxes, unless it hurts your competitors. We want less government and less taxes! Unless we can use it to our advantage!

www.cracked.com/article_20933_9-famous-thinkers-who-were-total-hypocrites_p2.html

[donnay]

Koch hypocrisy, say no to taxes, unless it hurts your competitors. We want less government and less taxes! Unless we can use it to our advantage!

www.cracked.com/article_20933_9-famous-thinkers-who-were-total-hypocrites_p2.html

The jokes really on you.

[charrob]

I don't have time to read through the entire thread right now; please forgive if this has already been mentioned.

The Kochs say that individual homeowners feeding electricity back to the grid and decreasing their electric bills are not helping to maintain the infrastructure of the grid. They state that other homeowners that don't produce their own electricity are therefore paying more for said grid.

The elephant in the room seems to be the large power generators themselves-- ie. coal fired power plants, etc. The utility companies pay money to these power generators for their power, yet an article i read awhile back on this stated these large power generators who feed power into the grid are not charged special taxes and fees for doing so.

How is it not discriminatory to charge small, individual, power generators special taxes and fees but not charge those same taxes and fees to the major power generators?

[PRB]

The jokes really on you.

why is that?

[PRB]

I don't have time to read through the entire thread right now; please forgive if this has already been mentioned.

The Kochs say that individual homeowners feeding electricity back to the grid and decreasing their electric bills are not helping to maintain the infrastructure of the grid. They state that other homeowners that don't produce their own electricity are therefore paying more for said grid.

The elephant in the room seems to be the large power generators themselves-- ie. coal fired power plants, etc. The utility companies pay money to these power generators for their power, yet an article i read awhile back on this stated these large power generators who feed power into the grid are not charged special taxes and fees for doing so.

How is it not discriminatory to charge small, individual, power generators special taxes and fees but not charge those same taxes and fees to the major power generators?

Because the rich guy says it's not, that's why.

[angelatc]

I

How is it not discriminatory to charge small, individual, power generators special taxes and fees but not charge those same taxes and fees to the major power generators?

I don't understand this logic at all. The major power generators only exist for the sole purpose of supplying the energy that the utility buys. The utility pays for the lines to that site because they need that product to resell to us. If they needed the power that the solar / wind people were selling back, they would likely pay for the infastructure upgrades and pass the costs along to us. They key word here though is need. They don't need the extra power that the dirty hippies are generating - that's why the dirty hippies had to use the government to force them to buy their incredibly expensive power back in the first place.

So why should those of us who are not interested in subsidizing boondoggles be forced to pay to upgrade the system to accommodate their expensive, inefficient needs?

The solar / wind power people just can't imagine paying their fair share of anything, I guess.

[PRB]

The solar / wind power people just can't imagine paying their fair share of anything, I guess.

Nobody likes paying their fair share, so why is the means of leveling increasing one, not decreasing all?

[donnay]

I don't have time to read through the entire thread right now; please forgive if this has already been mentioned.

The Kochs say that individual homeowners feeding electricity back to the grid and decreasing their electric bills are not helping to maintain the infrastructure of the grid. They state that other homeowners that don't produce their own electricity are therefore paying more for said grid.

The elephant in the room seems to be the large power generators themselves-- ie. coal fired power plants, etc. The utility companies pay money to these power generators for their power, yet an article i read awhile back on this stated these large power generators who feed power into the grid are not charged special taxes and fees for doing so.

How is it not discriminatory to charge small, individual, power generators special taxes and fees but not charge those same taxes and fees to the major power generators?

Excellent observation and connecting the dots. Because Corporations gets passes and the little people get screwed.