Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
20. More horsehocky.
Fri May 4, 2012, 08:28 PM
May 2012
Those with small independent PV installations with surplus power are generally well off enough to afford a substantive upfront investment. The rate scheme he advocates would pay them more in the aggregate than they get today. That money would have to come from those without PV systems, i.e.: those less well off or otherwise unable to do PV.


The amount of power the utility has to purchase is the same no matter whether it is coming from a home PV plant or a 150MW natural gas plant. All of the plants sell power on a market that sets the value for their power.

All of them except the small PV plants that is. Because the PV system is, shall we say, encroaching on an established set of players it is subject to being discriminated against in both access to the grid and access to the market that determines pricing. That is precisely the situation we have now.

The "Progressive Professor" would have you believe that paying the home PV owner for the real value of their power would take money from the pockets of the poor and line the pockets of the rich. That is a piece of corporate propaganda that stands the truth on its head.

In fact, as is perfectly obvious to anyone with a sliver of sense is that if there were no PV systems the utility would be buying the same set amount of electricity to meet its needs and paying fair market rates for all of it.

That is not and cannot be in dispute.

What the "Progressive Professor" seems to be trying to say is that the utility is saving money by stealing the electricity from the PV owners. He is trying to paint the PV owners as greedy rich people and saying essentially that they deserve to not be paid for the power they produce in order to keep costs low for the ratepayers. It is justice, the "Progressive Professor" says, to underpay this particular power plant alone among all other producers of peak power.

Wow.

It takes a very odd set of values to form that logical construct. Especially given two additional factors. First is the fact (and it is an established fact no matter what the "Professor" says) that the records of PV installations by zip code show that most are installed in middle class neighborhoods, not "rich" neighborhoods. The people may be comfortable, but they are hardly the 1% the "Progressive Professor" is trying to make them out to be.

Second is a fact already mentioned in a couple of other posts - by denying the owners of PV systems access to the same cash streams that all other power producers are receiving, two things are being accomplished; 1) the utility is enhancing its profits and 2) the utility is discouraging competition from distributed PV.

Let's say you could put in a solar array for payments lasting seven years. Further say that those payments are paid in full by the electricity you sell to the utility. After the system is paid off and for the next 20+ years you will then pocket that same cash stream which was going to pay the payments for your system.

Would you buy a home solar system?


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What is their objection? BlueToTheBone May 2012 #1
Competition jpak May 2012 #2
With a distributed renewable grid... kristopher May 2012 #31
Over simplified puff piece ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #3
The issue is a public policy vote by the California Public Utilities Commission kristopher May 2012 #4
Actually I am explaining the facts as they exists today in California ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #5
The article is in no sense a "puff piece" kristopher May 2012 #6
Your usual retreat to ad hominems... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #7
Bullshit. kristopher May 2012 #8
The only bullshit here is from your sacred cows... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #9
Your diversion is noted but I'm still waiting... kristopher May 2012 #10
I answered your questions, how about answering mine ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #13
Bullshit, that isn't an answer any more than your earlier comments addressed the OP. kristopher May 2012 #14
You sacred cow is gored...I think it needs another injection of hyperbole... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #19
Poor "Progressive Professor"... kristopher May 2012 #24
dude just stop backwoodsbob May 2012 #29
feel free to explain in detail how that is so... kristopher May 2012 #30
. XemaSab May 2012 #28
How can you call a person who went solar anti-solar? Yo_Mama May 2012 #11
No, the "Professor's" points are not good. kristopher May 2012 #12
Actually they are excellent ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #15
Horsehocky - you are standing directly in corporate utility's shoes. kristopher May 2012 #16
Take some pics of your set-up and post them. Ikonoklast May 2012 #17
This is the internet. kristopher May 2012 #23
I have a pretty good idea as to where that poster is coming from. Ikonoklast May 2012 #26
That's a lot more efficient way of making the same point. kristopher May 2012 #27
Sort of like your solar setup is totally unsubstantiated? XemaSab May 2012 #25
Because I do not toe his line WRT to renewal energy and offer instead a more rational approach ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #18
More horsehocky. kristopher May 2012 #20
It does illustrate the level of ridiculousness that has blighted DU lately, no? NickB79 May 2012 #21
Really? kristopher May 2012 #22
If you are in California you might want to sign their petition kristopher May 2012 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»California Utilities Balk...»Reply #20