APS (Arizona Public Service Co.) seeks higher bills for new solar customers

[The Straight Story]

Arizona Public Service Co. is proposing charging customers who install rooftop solar panels $50 to $100 or more a month to cover the cost of maintaining the power grid.

The request will be filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission on Friday and will kick off a months-long period of review by regulators, who will ultimately decide whether or not to approve the policy change. Their final decision could impact the future of rooftop solar in Arizona. The rooftop-solar industry, including companies that lease solar panels, argues that any changes in solar policies will kill demand for the services and crush a burgeoning industry.

APS officials said solar customers are not paying enough for the services they get from the power grid, which enables them to get electricity at night when solar panels don’t generate power and balance their household energy needs during the day when their solar-panel output and home demand don’t match up.

The change would only affect new solar customers, not those that already have solar on their homes, and would significantly reduce the savings associated with generating power using rooftop systems.

“What we are hearing from solar-leasing companies is that you are picking an alternative to your utility when you go solar,” said Jeff Guldner, APS senior vice president of customers and regulation. “You actually need the grid 24 hours a day.”

http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/free/20130712aps-seeks-higher-bills-new-solar-customers.html

[Sherman A1]

1. Charming

From just reading the OP, it appears that APS is pretty much trying to kill solar, but that's just my take on it.

[SwissTony]

2. What next? Gas stations to charge cyclists for not buying gas? n/t

[DirkGently]

13. Don't laugh yet. They already want to charge

electric car owners "gas tax" because they're not contributing enough to road upkeep.

This looks like the same conceit, with the same convenient effect of eliminating the incentive to go green.

[Posteritatis]

17. They're already pushing to fine hybrid/electric drivers, so I can see that too. (nt)

[noamnety]

24. doesn't sound far fetched to me.

They just raised our water rates here because people have reduced their water consumption.

[jtuck004]

3. The owners need to get with the Teabaggers in Alabama. Pro solar group, just got some stuff approved

by their Public Utility Commission to support more solar - against the wishes of the Koch brothers who make money from coal, etc.

[badtoworse]

4. The answer is easy. Just go off the grid.

There are costs associated with maintaining the grid to be available when the sun isn't shining - that is undeniable. If you are enjoying the benefit of having the grid available when you can't make your own power you should pay for that. If the owner of the rooftop system doesn't pay for it, someone else has to and that is not fair. I can't say whether $50 - $100 is the right number (seems high), but the concept is proper. The Commission will decide what is fair.

[hobbit709]

6. sure they will

[merrily]

8. Well, the right number is the entire key, isn't it?

If they were seeking to charge a dollar instead of a hundred dollars, there wouldn't be much of an issue.

In fact, some solar users were getting refunds for contributing power back to the grid. Where is that in this provider's "fair" calculation?

There is also a question of whether the alleged wear and tear on the grid coming from solar users is anywhere near commensurate with that of someone who uses the grid for all their power.

[badtoworse]

14. Wear and tear on the grid has nothing to do with it.

The utility has to stand by and provide power when the solar is not producing. There is a certain fixed cost associated with that and all users of the power grid should pay a fair share. If you don't to pay your share, you should go off-grid.

[merrily]

15. Actually it does have something to do with maintaining the grid.

And again, you and I seem to have different ideas of what is fair. I think the utilities owe the public plenty.

[badtoworse]

16. Other than reliable, reasonably priced service, what do the utilities owe the public?

Depreciation is an element of the fixed costs that all users of the power grid pay for. Unless you go off-grid, that includes people who generate their own solar power. It doesn't matter if you get a refund because you generated more than you used on a net basis - you still used the grid to buy and sell electricity.

[merrily]

20. I know what depreciation is and I have already posted why I think they owe the public.

[merrily]

9. P.S. Is it fair for private stockholders to own electricity and gas to begin with?

Or airwaves?

Obscene profits, grant and tax breaks from the people for many decades in the past and no end in sight, because you built plants to exploit resources that some argue should belong to people anyway?

Fair? Let's really talk fair, but from both sides of the coin (no pun intended).

[badtoworse]

11. What do you consider obscene profits?

It's absolutely fair for shareholders to own the electrical infrastructure. Where do you think the money to build it came from?

[merrily]

12. LOL. Is "absolutely fair" more fair than fair?

And, no, it isn't fair at all. The transactions should never have been structured as they were to begin with.

Our government keeps selling off to private companies things that belong to the people, then giving the companies tax breaks and other benefits to boot. The companies have long since recovered their costs and most of utility companies had government sponsored and protected monopolies for a very long time to boot.

At a minimum, the government should have been a joint venturer and allowed competition.

[badtoworse]

18. You should do some research about the history of electric power in the US.

It actually did start out as a competitive business, but things became a mess when numerous power companies were all stringing their own lines down the same streets. In the early 1900's, governments realized it made more sense to have one company run the lines as a regulated monopoly. Until the late 20th century, that monopoly generally included generation, transmission and distribution of power. FERC took a number actions in the 1990's that led to an unbundling of services and now, generation is a competitive business in most parts of the country. Transmission and distribution remain regulated monopolies.

The great majority of the electric infrastructure in the country was built by private investors, not government. There are exceptions with the big ones being BPA and TVA.

[merrily]

19. Exactly which statement in my posts was factually incorrect?

[badtoworse]

23. Obscene profits is incorrect. A utility's return on equity is regulated to a reasonable level.

Your statement about wear and tear is inaccurate. Your statement about using a competitive model in the electricity business ignores history and the fact that large areas of the country have competitive markets for generation. Your statement about government privatizing infrastructure is, at best, irrelevant to this thread.

I'm going to speculate. You're just annoyed that shareholders are getting a return on their investment and it comes out of your electric bill.

[merrily]

25. No, I said factually incorrect. You don't seem to get that being factually correct

is different from putting stuff into my post that you would have preferred to see in them.

For example, you "ignored" my statements about public assets and tax breaks, but I did not assume from that that you were either ignorant or biased, while you have assumed both about me.

"Obscene profits" is an obvious value judgment, not a factual statement. No factual error on my part there.

State protected monopoly for a long time" (or words to that effect) was also a factually correct statement. I felt no need, in the context in which i used it, to explain why the state-protected monopolies originally came about long ago. I was writing a post about charging solar customers, not a treatise on the history of power companies.

That some areas of the country have now ended the monopoly was also not relevant to what I was saying. So, I felt no need to include that either. So, also no a factually incorrect statement on my part. It's hard for me to imagine how you are claiming two statements I never made were factually incorrect statements that I made.

I don't recall that I made any statement about government privatizing infrastructure, as opposed to saying that the deals should have been structured differently to begin with. However, let's say I did say that. "Irrelevant" to this thread" does not equal a factually incorrect statement.

I'm going to speculate. You're just annoyed that shareholders are getting a return on their investment and it comes out of your electric bill.

No. I am not a solar user and I have never thought about my own electric bill in that way.

In general, though, it is not okay with me that government is run by business and for business, including when it comes to things that are common assets, like airwaves and gas and electric power. I made no secret of that in my prior posts on this thread, so there was not a lot of need to go outside that and speculate about how mad I supposedly am when I pay my electric bill.

But, for a relatively infrequent poster, you've made quite a few posts on this thread to defend electric companies. I guess I could speculate about that, too, but I won't.

[merrily]

21. "The Commission will decide what is fair."

Um, no. The Commission will decide how much consumers have to pay.

We're not going to start pretending that government is fair to the 99% at the expense of the 1% are we? Because, then, all I can do is laugh.

[merrily]

5. Privatized water, privatized sunshine.

Gee, you'd almost think they want us dead.

Of course, when we are, they'll turn on each other.

Too bad we won't be alive to see it, though.

[AsahinaKimi]

7. Surprise they are not charging a Sunshine tax...

The sun is shining on you, and we will charge you for using it, may as well charge for Air and Rain too...


Sonna baka na!

[merrily]

10. A tax would go to government and be available to benefit everyone.

A surcharge on a bill benefits only the corporation, as God intended.

[dsc]

22. the amount seems excessive

I am on a budget plan for my electricity and pay less than 100 a month.