Quote Originally Posted by viking79 View Post
Residential solar pushes burden onto other non solar customers because the utilities undercharge for connection fees and overcharge per kwh. Realistically, if someone has a $100 electric bill, the utility might charge $10 facility connection fee and $90 for kwh usage and profit, but in reality the utilities costs might be like $60 for the connection fee and $40 for electricity and profit. This means non solar customers are subsidizing solar customers and other light users since they aren't paying their burden of the infrastructure costs.
First these tariffs, connection fees are a pushback from utilities and are meant to be punitive, they are not necessary except to stem the installation of home solar arrays as well as wind turbines. And while some find them reasonable, they are not reasonable when you look at the totality of theses systems and how all purchasing and producing of electricity takes place.
As for the numbers from Viking I do not know where he got them, but I can tell you that they are accurate they would be based on all solar or wind electricity produced from these arrays will produce sufficient electricity including through net metering to fully cover all electrical needs. That just aint true. The truth is only 28% of PV home installations cover the full costs of their home electricity(much of this is do to homes not having sufficient space to display their solar arrays) that leaves 72% of PV systems that must buy electricity above from what they produce from their supplier which means the solar user is being charged a punitive tariff for both using the grid which they pay for with a connection fee like everyone else and purchasing electricity and having a home installation.
You do not see electric companies charging any other producer of electricity a tariff for producing their electricity from natural gas, coal, oil or nuclear. So why on PV systems, because they are renewables. If a home owner decided to reduce their consumption of electricity by implementing a smart electric plan that could reduce the use of electricity by 50% or more which is achievable in many cases, again you would not see a punitive tariff on the homeowner.
I would have no problem if there was a real discussion on costs for the smart grid and a real discussion on and how all power plants are treated. But this piece meal attacks on renewables without any real data to support them. It is a political mindset and not a true actuary of costs to be born by all parties. So before one says that its a fair price question again fair to whom.
States from Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin have implemented these tariffs and look at what party which was in control of the government when these tariffs where they were implemented. If you look at what these governors positions on renewables to global warming, you will find a distinct negative attitude. So Sis there there are real world consequences to one's attitude to these subjects. Draw your on conclusion. California has implemented a much different model realizing that they now have a significant amount of the power now coming from renewables but only after years of nurturing their fledgling renewables early on. This is not the case with many of the states that are listed above
And unfortunately you have a pushback against EVs as well. states like georgia and wisconsin are already charging additional fees against EVs and again you will hear some people say this is fair again Fair for whom. Again I do not know what their judging it against. Most state funding for maintenance of roads and infrastructure comes from the Feds, most states woefully underfund bridges, tunnels and roads. Whereas the number of EVs are still small as well as the fact they have a far less impact on bridges, tunnels and roads due to the fact that they are not emitting corrosive emitting tail pipe emissions.
Before these additional costs are implemented, a real discussion must take place on how our entire way of paying for our roads and electricity which is fair and thoughtful and not signal out fledgling technology that may save the day, and which will not plug up holes in funding from woefully misconceived tax policy. Don't get me wrong I'm not against taxes, because I believe we need to pay up front for if we pay on the backside it will cost far more in both time and money
Bottom line Sis can't believe i'm saying it to you but I feel for you.
Residential solar pushes burden onto other non solar customers because the utilities undercharge for connection fees and overcharge per kwh. Realistically, if someone has a $100 electric bill, the utility might charge $10 facility connection fee and $90 for kwh usage and profit, but in reality the utilities costs might be like $60 for the connection fee and $40 for electricity and profit. This means non solar customers are subsidizing solar customers and other light users since they aren't paying their burden of the infrastructure costs.
First these tariffs, connection fees are a pushback from utilities and are meant to be punitive, they are not necessary except to stem the installation of home solar arrays as well as wind turbines. And while some find them reasonable, they are not reasonable when you look at the totality of theses systems and how all purchasing and producing of electricity takes place.
As for the numbers from Viking I do not know where he got them, but I can tell you that they are accurate they would be based on all solar or wind electricity produced from these arrays will produce sufficient electricity including through net metering to fully cover all electrical needs. That just aint true. The truth is only 28% of PV home installations cover the full costs of their home electricity(much of this is do to homes not having sufficient space to display their solar arrays) that leaves 72% of PV systems that must buy electricity above from what they produce from their supplier which means the solar user is being charged a punitive tariff for both using the grid which they pay for with a connection fee like everyone else and purchasing electricity and having a home installation.
You do not see electric companies charging any other producer of electricity a tariff for producing their electricity from natural gas, coal, oil or nuclear. So why on PV systems, because they are renewables. If a home owner decided to reduce their consumption of electricity by implementing a smart electric plan that could reduce the use of electricity by 50% or more which is achievable in many cases, again you would not see a punitive tariff on the homeowner.
I would have no problem if there was a real discussion on costs for the smart grid and a real discussion on and how all power plants are treated. But this piece meal attacks on renewables without any real data to support them. It is a political mindset and not a true actuary of costs to be born by all parties. So before one says that its a fair price question again fair to whom.
States from Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin have implemented these tariffs and look at what party which was in control of the government when these tariffs where they were implemented. If you look at what these governors positions on renewables to global warming, you will find a distinct negative attitude. So Sis there there are real world consequences to one's attitude to these subjects. Draw your on conclusion. California has implemented a much different model realizing that they now have a significant amount of the power now coming from renewables but only after years of nurturing their fledgling renewables early on. This is not the case with many of the states that are listed above
And unfortunately you have a pushback against EVs as well. states like georgia and wisconsin are already charging additional fees against EVs and again you will hear some people say this is fair again Fair for whom. Again I do not know what their judging it against. Most state funding for maintenance of roads and infrastructure comes from the Feds, most states woefully underfund bridges, tunnels and roads. Whereas the number of EVs are still small as well as the fact they have a far less impact on bridges, tunnels and roads due to the fact that they are not emitting corrosive emitting tail pipe emissions.
Before these additional costs are implemented, a real discussion must take place on how our entire way of paying for our roads and electricity which is fair and thoughtful and not signal out fledgling technology that may save the day, and which will not plug up holes in funding from woefully misconceived tax policy. Don't get me wrong I'm not against taxes, because I believe we need to pay up front for if we pay on the backside it will cost far more in both time and money
Bottom line Sis can't believe i'm saying it to you but I feel for you.
