The core of the issue is will specifically target those who install power generation systems on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid
One of the incentives for doing your own power generation is that in most cases utilities are required to buy back the power under the Net Metering deal. This is a good thing, in general, but there are some engineering issues.
When this was invented, I don't know if anyone involved did the calculation of "what if we have tens of thousands of houses generating enough backflow to rival the amount generated by the rest of our system?"
The movement has been so successful that now we can see the possibility that on a very sunny day or windy day or both that these local generation sites are generating enough power that there isn't any where to put it. Voltages rise, breakers trip, sectors go dark.
If you are a utility company, you likely have several energy sources at your disposal: hydroelectric, coal-fired plants, nuclear. For each of these sources, you have at your disposal a knob, generally sitting at 5 or 6 that you can turn down a notch to move the water past the generators and down the stream, turn off a couple of burners in the coal fired plant, or move the quenching rods in a little further to reduce the output of your nuke plant.
If you have a tens of thousand of home pushing energy back up what used to be exclusively the down pipe. There isn't any centrally-located control knob for that.
Certainly part of the reluctance of the utilities is a resistance to the new ways of the world, but it would be imprudent to discount the engineering issues that this is exposing. Yes, the utilities, who are not known for large amounts of imagination, should have been ahead of this and embraced this. But here we are.
So in light of that, if taxation slows this unsustainable growth in home solar installations pushing current up the down pipe, perhaps it is not all that bad as the article makes it sound.
will specifically target those who install power generation systems on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid.
Misleading title. They want to tax people who want to sell the solar energy back into the grid , since joe six pack has to rely on other people's equipment to transmit the energy he captured on his roof. Also there is the issue of joe synchronising his output with whatever is coming down the line from the normal generators.
Maybe it shouldn't be a tax, maybe a fee paid to whoever owns the power infrastructure.
Joe Six Pack already pays a basic charge for his access to the grid.
The issue seems to be that PoCos have decided to mix all the infrastructure costs into the variable price of the energy you consume. When your solar power makes you a net producer of energy, that scheme no longer works. But I don't see why we have to institute a new tax to fix their broken pricing model.
Given you don't generate as much power as you consume, it is an inevitable outcome for most solar installs to be connected to the power grid. The cost of installing a solar array to meet all energy usage, especially in the Summer in Oklahoma, is significant. It gets crazy hot there.
I was just complaining to my wife not 30 minutes ago about how it's cold here in Moraga today. Sometimes I miss the Oklahoma heat, but that's about it.
Synchronising isn't really an issue. You need to do a dc-ac conversion in any case, so you take the incoming mains feed and make that the reference for the ac modulator.
Selling power back to the grid is a rapidly growing home industry which, like any other, should be taxed and regulated. (Emphasis on "like any other", since libertarians will undoubtedly be against the whole principle.)
If you produce something and systematically sell it for profit it's perfectly normal. It's not your kids' lemonade stand or a garage sale we're talking about here.
The challenge is to do it in such a way that still stimulates the practice, not punish it. Simply calling any form of taxation "dumb" is not constructive.
Also, it's not just the simple "Jimmy has a solar panel on his roof" scenario we're talking about here. Collective solar energy initiatives on residential properties are becoming a real industry.
Yep. But it's not. The difference is that utilities are especially regulated because they have monopolistic operations. Part of the quid pro quo for going forward with the monopoly is that they have to be open to buying power back from other producers. I don't have the Oklahoma legislation here, but given the available facts, I'm going to bet that's the case. In other words, this taxation isn't a matter of treating residential power generation like any other business, it's about the utility using the legislators to claw back a commitment they now regret making.
I'm extremely intrigued by the co-occurrence within a span of 3-4 sentences of
> Selling power back to the grid is a rapidly growing home industry which, like any other, should be taxed and regulated. (Emphasis on "like any other"
with
> It's not your kids' lemonade stand or a garage sale we're talking about here.
I believe close to 100% of lemonade stands and garage sales both completely ignore local regulations (in fact, every so often you read about the police red-facedly shutting down a lemonade stand) and hide all their income for tax purposes. Can you elaborate on why this is a bad thing?
Keep in mind that it's not a charge for selling power back, it's a charge for connecting it to the power grid. Not everyone running solar sells back to the grid.
I'm hesitating to say collusion is involved, but given the brevity of the act and speed by which this is being passed, it's probably not far off the mark. Also, 'emergency' purposes isn't even defined.
[+] [-] nhebb|12 years ago|reply
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-su...
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=HI#tabs-4
[+] [-] wglb|12 years ago|reply
One of the incentives for doing your own power generation is that in most cases utilities are required to buy back the power under the Net Metering deal. This is a good thing, in general, but there are some engineering issues.
When this was invented, I don't know if anyone involved did the calculation of "what if we have tens of thousands of houses generating enough backflow to rival the amount generated by the rest of our system?"
The movement has been so successful that now we can see the possibility that on a very sunny day or windy day or both that these local generation sites are generating enough power that there isn't any where to put it. Voltages rise, breakers trip, sectors go dark.
If you are a utility company, you likely have several energy sources at your disposal: hydroelectric, coal-fired plants, nuclear. For each of these sources, you have at your disposal a knob, generally sitting at 5 or 6 that you can turn down a notch to move the water past the generators and down the stream, turn off a couple of burners in the coal fired plant, or move the quenching rods in a little further to reduce the output of your nuke plant.
If you have a tens of thousand of home pushing energy back up what used to be exclusively the down pipe. There isn't any centrally-located control knob for that.
Certainly part of the reluctance of the utilities is a resistance to the new ways of the world, but it would be imprudent to discount the engineering issues that this is exposing. Yes, the utilities, who are not known for large amounts of imagination, should have been ahead of this and embraced this. But here we are.
So in light of that, if taxation slows this unsustainable growth in home solar installations pushing current up the down pipe, perhaps it is not all that bad as the article makes it sound.
[+] [-] thedrbrian|12 years ago|reply
Misleading title. They want to tax people who want to sell the solar energy back into the grid , since joe six pack has to rely on other people's equipment to transmit the energy he captured on his roof. Also there is the issue of joe synchronising his output with whatever is coming down the line from the normal generators.
Maybe it shouldn't be a tax, maybe a fee paid to whoever owns the power infrastructure.
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
The issue seems to be that PoCos have decided to mix all the infrastructure costs into the variable price of the energy you consume. When your solar power makes you a net producer of energy, that scheme no longer works. But I don't see why we have to institute a new tax to fix their broken pricing model.
[+] [-] kordless|12 years ago|reply
I was just complaining to my wife not 30 minutes ago about how it's cold here in Moraga today. Sometimes I miss the Oklahoma heat, but that's about it.
[+] [-] timthorn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
If you produce something and systematically sell it for profit it's perfectly normal. It's not your kids' lemonade stand or a garage sale we're talking about here.
The challenge is to do it in such a way that still stimulates the practice, not punish it. Simply calling any form of taxation "dumb" is not constructive.
Also, it's not just the simple "Jimmy has a solar panel on his roof" scenario we're talking about here. Collective solar energy initiatives on residential properties are becoming a real industry.
[+] [-] Kroem3r|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|12 years ago|reply
> Selling power back to the grid is a rapidly growing home industry which, like any other, should be taxed and regulated. (Emphasis on "like any other"
with
> It's not your kids' lemonade stand or a garage sale we're talking about here.
I believe close to 100% of lemonade stands and garage sales both completely ignore local regulations (in fact, every so often you read about the police red-facedly shutting down a lemonade stand) and hide all their income for tax purposes. Can you elaborate on why this is a bad thing?
[+] [-] kordless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angrybits|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kordless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madospace|12 years ago|reply