Oklahoma Moves To Discourage Solar and Wind Power 504
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Paul Monies reports at NewsOK that Oklahoma's legislature has passed a bill that 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 reversing a 1977 law that forbade utilities to charge extra to solar users. 'Renewable energy fed back into the grid is ultimately doing utility companies a service,' says John Aziz. 'Solar generates in the daytime, when demand for electricity is highest, thereby alleviating pressure during peak demand.'
The state's major electric utilities backed the bill but couldn't provide figures on how much customers already using distributed generation are getting subsidized by other customers. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma have about 1.3 million electric customers in the state. They have about 500 customers using distributed generation. Kathleen O'Shea, OG&E spokeswoman, said few distributed generation customers want to sever their ties to the grid. 'If there's something wrong with their panel or it's really cloudy, they need our electricity, and it's going to be there for them,' O'Shea said. 'We just want to make sure they're paying their fair amount of that maintenance cost.' The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''"
The state's major electric utilities backed the bill but couldn't provide figures on how much customers already using distributed generation are getting subsidized by other customers. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma have about 1.3 million electric customers in the state. They have about 500 customers using distributed generation. Kathleen O'Shea, OG&E spokeswoman, said few distributed generation customers want to sever their ties to the grid. 'If there's something wrong with their panel or it's really cloudy, they need our electricity, and it's going to be there for them,' O'Shea said. 'We just want to make sure they're paying their fair amount of that maintenance cost.' The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''"
Re:Something wrong at the foundation - (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the flip-side to regulated utilities. When your profit is determined by the government, you always turn to the government to increase or maintain your profits, which in turn means you become quite expert at that game. [smbc-comics.com]
I don't object to a fair "base rate" that actually covers the maintenance overhead; seems fair to pay that even if you're a net seller to the utility. This may become another case where the "last mile" maintenance costs should be separated from the "content provider".
Re:Suck It Up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, in Star Trek words...
We, the collective, believe your technology is not even worthy of being considered. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Re:Suck It Up! (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, similar trick was pulled off successfully in Spain, where the Sun is shining most of the year.
Solar power gets taxed more and you will be fined 30K EUR, if you do not comply.
Re:Interesting hat it mirrors the electric car iss (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the electric companies have a pretty good point that they still have to pay to maintain lines to your house even though you are now consuming a fraction of what you would have.
I don't know about Oklahoma, but my bill is split into two parts: a fixed per-day customer charge, plus a separate charge per kWh. Presumably, the charge per day covers the lines and administrative overhead. (The per-kWh charge is further divided into separate fuel and generation charges, and the fuel rate changes frequently.)
If Oklahoma uses this system, then the utility is being fairly compensated for the power lines no matter how little electricity the customer actually buys.
Re:Something wrong at the foundation - (Score:5, Interesting)
And unfortunately it is not plain wrong in an economic sense.
The neo-con ideology which has pervaded most capitalist economies is one of debt fuelled growth. This is across the board including government, business and private household debt. In the US this started in earnest with Regan, in other countries it began when whatever new-breed, neo-con idealist came to power in their country.
The problem is that these economies are now (metaphorically) "negatively geared". This means that while they are growing and turning a profit they are ok and turn a profit for yourself from other people's money. But when they start to make a loss the losses are exaggerated by the gearing and the economy is in serious trouble.
e.g. How many times has it been reported around the world that even a flat GDP growth is a major problem and will have serious negative consequences and negative GDP growth will be a utter disaster? Sound like a healthy and robust situation to you?!
This is where your "grow or die" mentality comes from and it makes perfect economic sense.
Now everyone in business knows that if the total cost of a project (including interest etc) is less than the profits (after taking risk into account) then the project should usually go ahead. Funding projects with debt and allowing those with capital to benefit from the time value of their money is perfectly sane and sensible and a core part of any healthy economy.
HOWEVER
The problem with this mentality as it has been applied across the board (i.e. at a country or global level) in the modern economy is many-fold:
- The true cost of many projects is simply ignored or left for future generations to deal with. (e.g. pollution, retirement, housing, infrastructure, sustainability)
- Many of the projects are pork barrel spending and not a net positive at all
- The true cost of the DEBT itself is ignored. (e.g. The Fed handing out essentially free money to financial institutions and the accumulation overseas debt)
- The overall impact to the economy of certain projects/decisions is not taken into account. (e.g. job losses, economic stimulus)
- The positive economic stimulus of a policy/project (e.g. Bush tax cuts) is grossly over estimated.
This is what has led you to the current situation. The ONLY way out of it is through a painful correction of some sort.
e.g.
- Higher taxes of some sort to pay off outstanding debt to bring it to sensible levels
- Massive reduction in spending (probably not an actual option as the viable cuts would not amount to enough)
- Create a huge number of new exports that bring in additional money. (again, not really viable since it would probably already have been done if it was)
- Some other major macro economic change that would destabilise the market in the short/medium term.
Re:Something wrong at the foundation - (Score:2, Interesting)
Debt-fueled growth is a neo-con idea? Did I miss the part where Obama came out as a neo-con? Or are you admitting that the liberal reason for going into debt isn't to eventually gain something from it but simply is being used as a precursor to nationalize and steal vast amounts of wealth from the private citizens?
Re:Something wrong at the foundation - (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing wrong per-se with debt funded growth as long as the risks are properly accounted for. For example, a year ago I bought a new car. While I could have paid cash for it it made much more sense to finance a large part of it since interest rates are so low and invest what was not spent. As long as the investment is beating the low interest rate I'm ahead. Now it's pretty easy to beat a 1.99% interest rate. Now the problem comes if that investment fails and the source of income to pay off that debt fails. In my case my investments are well diversified so even if something like what happened in 2008 occurs I will still be ahead.
The problem as I see it is when people get too greedy and things get too risky so that everything collapses if things don't go according to plan. I fault that on the loose lending practices of the bankers and the repeal of Glass-Steagall which to this day has not been addressed. It's like what happened in the 1920s where speculators were buying stock on margin with only the stock backing it up. In 2008 it was the same thing but with real estate.
In the case of the United States, it could start paying down its debt any time it wanted to by raising some taxes, especially on those at the top who are finding good ways to hide their assets in various offshore accounts. Changing how corporations are taxed would also help a lot, especially reducing taxes on the small businesses and closing all the loopholes that large corporations like Apple, GE and Google use to avoid paying taxes. Adding a very small tax to each stock transaction would also go a long way towards adding stability to the markets which are being gamed.
Social Security could be fixed just by removing the cap, which is basically a tax cut at those earning above the cap.
Sadly I don't see any progress being made, especially with the republicans who fight tooth and nail over any reforms no matter how badly they're needed.
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a higher BASE rate. Not what they get charged for power. Since the customers are generating power and possibly even getting paid by the power company to do so, they are paying far less than most of us. But they still use the most expensive part of the utility, the lines. Green energy doesn't make power lines any cheaper.
When customers give power back, often the utility is required to pay them for that power. But wind and solar do not provide power to the grid continuously. When the wind picks up or the sun is out, suddenly all these people are providing power at the same time... and not when the power company needs it. The power companies methods of generating power do not ramp up or down easily. For example, coal burning plants operate very inefficiently when they are not running at full capacity. So every watt contributed by wind and solar actually make a coal plant even less efficient.
Shit like this is what will sink green energy. Turn it into a subsidy like Ethanol and it'll never get anywhere.
Re:Something wrong at the foundation - (Score:2, Interesting)
Obama has stated on more than one occasion (including his writings where he claimed to agree with his father, an avid anti-American communist) that he does support many socialist/communist ideals. He believes in equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. That is very much a socialist/communist ideal and very definitely not a free market advocate.
Yeah, my reading comprehension is sufficient to notice that "In my own country it was the NZ LABOUR..." that you most likely were not from the US.
So what is a "new-breed" neo-con since neo-con is a derogatory term for a new breed of conservative?