Dissruptive Challenge

13

Comments

  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    Like the electrical co-op Chris mentioned that is "non profit", except that the BoD makes good money off it. Who sets their salaries? Chances are very good it's them.

    'coot - yes, they set their own salaries. They have a meeting and a salary increase is proposed. All the members of the co-op get a single vote on this issue. It don't matter what the members vote because they never tell anybody what the results of the vote are. Then they have another meeting and approve their salary increase.

    There's an elite few that totally run the co-op and make all the decisions.
    --
    Chris
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Read the paper on Disruptive Challenges. Lots of interesting issues, some of which I think they are grasping at straws, but it is clear that the RE industry has caught the attention of the corporate giants.

    Form what I read, I take that the industry wants to maintain the status quo regardless of new technologies. Talking about investors, credit ratings, profits, and the likes does not send me a message that the industry wants to change and move forward by embracing new technologies. The paper also spins the content around those that will be left to shoulder the burden of potential increases; however, it does suggest that everyone who was on the grid be billed for any incremental increase in the cost of doing business.

    The paper also infers quite clearly that the industry is still stuck in the past because it calls for legislative intervention to maintain and retain the financial flexibility required to maintain investment-grade credit ratings.

    The paper does not in any way propose ways and means to adapt and grow with the new technologies. This is evident in the actions section on page 18. The only mention of a possible paradigm shift is in the fifth bullet under longer-term actions; however, the emphasis is not to identify new business models and services to enhance and grow the industry, but to recover lost revenues.

    This paper clearly demonstrates the neanderthal mentality of the corporate giants, and that a system that is so integral to our modern society and way of life is stuck in the past.

    So, the crux of the matter is that in the US, the RE sector has finally achieved notoriety such that it is now on the radar of some very influential corporations and people. Canada does not have quite this issue.

    Since this is about money and from money comes power, be prepared for a Tsunami of legislation and lobbying to keep the RE sector at bay, and in another vein, show that upstart who really is the boss.

    Just my $0.02 FWIW.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    A masterful synopsis, Ernest. ;)
  • nielniel Solar Expert Posts: 10,311 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    i agree and it won't be long they'll go whole hog into nec requirements making it a very cumbersome and expensive hastle for us to just have re put in making it another tool to limit the re industry.
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    niel wrote: »
    i agree and it won't be long they'll go whole hog into nec requirements making it a very cumbersome and expensive hastle for us to just have re put in making it another tool to limit the re industry.

    I don't think the utilities are necessarily interested in limiting the RE industry - just in protecting their bottom line and business model. They have become the proverbial dinosaur. They rule the planet at the present but they're going to go extinct eventually.
    --
    Chris
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    ChrisOlson wrote: »
    I don't think the utilities are necessarily interested in limiting the RE industry - just in protecting their bottom line and business model. They have become the proverbial dinosaur. They rule the planet at the present but they're going to go extinct eventually.
    --
    Chris

    I agree with you in that the utilities only want to protect their bottom line; however, there does not seem to be any bright stars in their midsts who are coming up with radical ideas and plans that will allow them to do just that and change at the same time.

    Governments have these shining moments every now and then. The RRSP (your 401K I think) was introduced in the '50s. Some accountant theorized that people would take to this notion of deferred taxation and later on when people retired, the government would get more taxes from these people. It actually worked. Trudeau changed from imperial gallons to litres for gas and overnight the price went from $0.50 per gallon to $0.50 per litre. Our tax system went from a deduction tax based system to a credit based tax system (percentage of what you would like to claim), worked a treat, government kept more money.

    In having said this, the utilities need to find these types of people in order to make a paradigm shift in their mindsets. You mentioned that the utilities should get on the RE bandwagon as a new revenue stream that would also allow the utilities to implement some control over what they are seeing as a threat. Maybe it's easier to have politicians do the dirty work then the utilities can always say it wasn't them that are responsible for the new pain to your pocket book.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • westbranchwestbranch Solar Expert Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    this morning there is a link on RSS feeds that goes into a good amount of detail on an aspect of this topic.
    A slightly different look into how to integrate PV power to the 'Utility Model' .

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/the-calm-before-the-solar-storm?cmpid=rss
     
    KID #51B  4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
    CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM 
    Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
    2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
    Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
    West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    westbranch wrote: »
    this morning there is a link on RSS feeds that goes into a good amount of detail on an aspect of this topic.
    A slightly different look into how to integrate PV power to the 'Utility Model' .

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/the-calm-before-the-solar-storm?cmpid=rss

    Read the article. Interesting that it alms about bundling the costs of electric power generation into one lump sum. I believe that in Canada, this is not the case anymore. The distribution, generation, services, admin, etc are all broken out on a person's hydro bill. This was the case when we had our condo in Victoria. When this happened, I know a lot of people who were very insensed at the total of their bills because the electricity consumed portion of the bill did not represent the majority of their electric bill.

    The rest of the article clearly states what everyone already knows and that is the utility sector is a dinosaur and does not change easily. The is not the case for one major utility, NRG, so the article goes. The overview of NRG's foray into the RE market is commendable, but there has to be more to it. You just don't offer a service such as they are apparently promoting without having some means of ensuring a revenue stream. I would submit that NRG is actively combing the RE market for acquisitions such that NRG will be able to have divisions within its company that support the bottom line, a full service provider so to speak.

    I would think that you will see in the near future similar proposals from other utility providers, acquisitions as well. Can't have one utility get on the bandwagon and steal all the glory. If this were to happen, NRG will be able to promote themselves as eco-friendly and a greener utility. NRG would also be able to lobby politicians for support because they are reducing their carbon footprint, complying with national and state "green" initiatives, and such.

    I also think that this will be a business model for outer urban and rural areas where it makes sense to "boldly go where no man has gone before" because of the infrastructure costs associated with the outlying areas, renewing, etc. Close in urban and city areas will always be well served by the utility companies, probably because politicians will make sure of this.

    Having stated the above, I do not hold out much hope for the utility companies in Canada regarding a change in this type of direction. Too much political support and influence in the utilities, with little or no competition available. Canada also has a different form of legislative behavior. In Canada legislation is enacted; however, it is generally accepted to be voluntary in nature because we Canadians are kinder, gentler souls who do not really want to make anyone or anything really "do" anything.

    Maybe there is hope for the utility sector (not in Canada though), but it won't be because they are playing nice.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    While the net metering model described in the article is the way it works in California, it is not the way it works in Arizona, sort of. If one was on the standard rate plan with tier pricing then Time is not a factor just consumption, cost is based on total kWh consumed. So the premise is broken there. If one is on the TOU plans then solar generation is net metered against the same "Time tier" it was generated on, but one can't get high dollar pay in and then buy off peak power for lower prices with that credit. The banking is all done with kWh not dollars. The end of year true up is at an avoided generation rate of $0.065 which is pretty high when compared to actually generation costs off peak which look like about $0.02.

    That being said APS is still trying to break the net metering plan to be even more to their advantage. At least the Utilities commission has stopped that , so far.

    Lets be really clear, I still use the grid, I buy off peak power every month. I pay for that generation, but I pay nothing for using the grid as a long term storage device to draw on later in the year. Is it fair? Maybe is the answer, the utility sells my excess at generation time to my neighbor for full value, including transmission and delivery fees. They do virtually nothing to get that advantage except measure the transfer for which they are paid metering fees by me. They also should get a peak generation advantage in that they don't need the extra generation capacity my push to the grid represents let alone the generation they would have to supply if I didn't have solar. The service and delivery fees are calculated as a running total from Jan 1 each year. I don't pay any of those until my total reaches some positive value, but they have been paid already for everything extra I put on the line by my neighbors creating a push on the delivery fees.

    Should I pay something more? Maybe but how would one gauge that "storage" cost, if they have been paid for the usage on the fly? One thing I can do is to be selective on loads to minimize my storage towards warmer months consumption. I would move even more off the off peak they are trying to encourage with the low rates.

    I have talk to a couple guys you say the best rate plan for a "large" solar producer is the standard rate plan where the price is based on tier consumption. Then only a 2-3 months of the year would be in any layer higher than the base and those kWh are cheaper than my current TOU plan. Many months I would buy no electric at all while still banking some kWh for the months I consume more.
    in summer you’re billed at different costs per kWh depending on energy usage
    the first 400 are billed at approximately $0.096 <-- Jan - Jun & Oct - Dec I would be at zero net consumption or be in this tier and be banking kWh most months.
    the next 400 are billed at approximately $0.13 <-- this is where I would be in July, Aug and depending on weather maybe Sept.
    the next 2,000 are billed at approximately $0.163 <-- I might make it here in July and Aug if the temps are extreme.
    all remaining kWh are billed at approximately $0.174
    in winter the cost is approximately $0.094 per kWh

    I need a full June and July month of TED data to confirm this. I think the utilities are going to drive the profit one way or another, my goal is to minimize how much of that come from me!

    I am anxious to get the hard facts and stop taking APS word for the best rate plan, as they have no idea what goes on with my side of the meter.
  • westbranchwestbranch Solar Expert Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    And again: a new RSS feed says that solar generation is a 54% benefit to the utility

    http://www.solarfeeds.com/arizona-sees-54-return-on-distributed-generation-solar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+solarfeed+%28Solar+Feeds%29

    SolarDave this is an Arizona study...
     
    KID #51B  4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
    CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM 
    Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
    2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
    Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
    West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    westbranch wrote: »
    And again: a new RSS feed says that solar generation is a 54% benefit to the utility

    http://www.solarfeeds.com/arizona-sees-54-return-on-distributed-generation-solar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+solarfeed+%28Solar+Feeds%29

    SolarDave this is an Arizona study...

    Also read the two corresponding articles; Solar Power: Cheaper than Wind and Extreme Weather in Australia: A Casualty of Climate Change. The Solar Power: Cheaper than Wind expects that solar and wind power generation to be in the order of 69 to 74 percent of all new power generation by 2030. This bodes well for visionaries like NRG, only 17 years to see if the fruits of its endeavour works out, should really know within 5 to 7 years.

    The article "Extreme Weather in Australia: A Casualty of Climate Change" is still on the bandwagon that we humans are the main culprits in climate change based on when we started documenting the environment. I do believe we contribute; however, we are a small percentage of the issue. Mount St Helene eruption produced significant ash that is still floating up in the upper atmosphere. The volcanic eruption from the Icelandic eruption is there as well, providing quite the insulating blanket for Earth. Let us not forget the tsunami that floated through the far east reshaping the landscape, and the earthquake that produced this shook us on our axis. How about the shifting plates in Japan. Lots of natural phenomena going on that is not being linked to this issue, and why should it be, it's not in the interest of big business if it's only Mother Nature.

    The "experts" that we hear may very well be learned; however, they are not always correct, or close to the money. Reminds me of meteorologists who look at weather patterns; went to probability of precipitation instead of actuals. Nice job if you can get it, still get paid and only have to be right 50% of the time.

    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada used to have a climate similar to Florida eons ago.

    Yes, there is a lot we can do and must do, but the demand is not going to go away, just increase. Hope that the theory on new energy resources plays out in the long run, but I thought that about the race to the moon. Figured we would have had a settlement there by now.

    Short rant.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    westbranch wrote: »
    And again: a new RSS feed says that solar generation is a 54% benefit to the utility

    http://www.solarfeeds.com/arizona-sees-54-return-on-distributed-generation-solar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+solarfeed+%28Solar+Feeds%29

    SolarDave this is an Arizona study...

    I love that, I will read that with keen interest.
  • westbranchwestbranch Solar Expert Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    And another RSS post about Arizona .. quote of the day...

    It is interesting that most conservative state has found a conservative argument for Solar PV led by one of the scions of the conservative movement. For more information go to http://dontkillsolar.com/site/
     
    KID #51B  4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
    CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM 
    Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
    2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
    Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
    West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Looks like California is getting into the act as well.
    http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/california--new-group-formed-to-defend-net-metering_100010958/
    CAUSE stands for Californians Against Utilities Stopping solar Energy.
  • nielniel Solar Expert Posts: 10,311 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    i find it amusing their argument that the solar user does not pay for the lines and such. the solar user shouldn't because as a generating source of electric the power he produced went out to other customers that the utility got to charge all of that good stuff for for power that did not come from the generators of the utility. so now they are saying that they should get paid twice for the same transmission of power going over the same lines once?

    although i laugh at this argument, it is a very serious thing as the agencies and regulators of the power industry are a bit stupid on the very subject that they are regulating and the utilities could thusly convince them to disallow the net metering to suit the greed of those utilities and insure they are top dogs with no competition.
  • ggunnggunn Solar Expert Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    niel wrote: »

    although i laugh at this argument, it is a very serious thing as the agencies and regulators of the power industry are a bit stupid on the very subject that they are regulating and the utilities could thusly convince them to disallow the net metering to suit the greed of those utilities and insure they are top dogs with no competition.
    What, you don't like the free market system? :D
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    I think the utilities are opposed to net-metering because Federal law requires them to buy the power at retail rates. They want that law repealed so they can buy it at wholesale rates and resell it to make money on it. That law is a form of a subsidy that comes out of the utilities' pockets instead of the taxpayer's pockets. But eventually it comes out of the pockets of the consumers that don't have solar. The caveat for the utility is that they have to apply to the Public Service Commission for a rate increase to recover it.

    The bad part for the consumer is that utilities have a built-in, guaranteed profit margin. They are the last regulated monopolies. They are not used to competition. The rooftop solar industry has evolved to where it can provide competition without all the huge infrastructure that the utilities require to deliver their product. That's bad for the utility's bottom line, and there's not a dang thing they can do about it except whine.
    --
    Chris
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Interesting topic this net-metering. Have no issue with being able to produce power and sell it back to the grid. The issue becomes you are now a producer and want to use a system that you have not put in place and are not maintaining. Prior to having solar you were a consumer and paid your monthly bill; however, you have now moved into an entrepaneurial role and are a merchant selling a product. If you want to sell to me, and use my system, you have to pay to do that. A simple comparison would be an oil and filter change at a service station. I provide the product and charge you a one up fee for the service. You want to come in and use your product and have me do the service, I will bill you for my time and use of the facility that would probably be more than if I provided the product as well.

    We can debate the tax issue and state that in essence you are paying for the system through your tax system, but this is a no solution topic, especially in a slightly rather polarized forum such as this.

    The utilities do have an option available to them. The utilities must stop charging a one fee covers all your requirements. My electric bills in Victoria at our condo were broken out for electricity consumption, administration, system charges, etc. Our electric bill for our boat in the marina in Victoria was based on the industrial rate. I did a comparison of the two and the bottom line was within 5%, on a $100.00 cost, the marina electric bill based on $0.15 per kWh was within $5.00 of the condo bill when all was broken out.

    Having stated this, you as a producer are using a system that you are now expecting to be compensated for - paying $0.00 or getting a rebate, but not expecting the costs associated with being a provider. Chris is correct in that the utilities will get there money back in one way or another, and that the non-providers will take the brunt.

    You, as a provider, do get a return on your investment by reducing your electric consumption, and even getting a rebate from the utility company, and governments are providing subsidies for your installations (I realize not all who installed solar power systems have been compensated - timing is everything); however, you should pay for using a system that you now need as an entrepreneur. Your product is not worth anything if you cannot get it to market.

    Governments could also look at net-metering in another light, and that is that you are an entrepreneur, and as such, a business owner. In this regard, you would be expected to file as any small business would. Now you are paying corporate taxes and through this subsidizing the grid infrastructure.

    I do not agree that net-metering should not be allowed, or that a citizen cannot go off-grid if they so choose to. For governments to legislate this because of the utilities concerns and fears is wrong, such as where Chris lives. In doing this governments are being hypocritical in that they talk the talk, that of being "green" and "eco friendly", but do not walk the talk, and in the end there is not a lot of change. Having stated this, I do believe that here has to be a middle ground.

    As always there is no free lunch.

    Just a few thoughts for a vibrant discussion.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,485 admin
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    ChrisOlson wrote: »
    The bad part for the consumer is that utilities have a built-in, guaranteed profit margin. They are the last regulated monopolies. They are not used to competition. The rooftop solar industry has evolved to where it can provide competition without all the huge infrastructure that the utilities require to deliver their product. That's bad for the utility's bottom line, and there's not a dang thing they can do about it except whine.
    --
    Chris

    Or get laws passed that make it illegal to "leave the grid" without paying the utility off (aka stranded capacity) and/or give cities the power to "red tag" homes without utility power/garbage collection, etc... (which they do in California and probably other states).

    I can see a point where certain regions may become "de-electrified" and force others in the region to go off grid if they want to or not.

    But this is sort of the problem with subsidies in the first place. They "pay" people to go places where infrastructure costs may not be justified. Whether or not that will cause over all price increases or not can be another question (farms that have to go "off grid" and pay more for power, roads, water, no-dams, etc.).

    In general, by the time the corporations and government add their "skim"--The over all impact on the economy will probably be small--But it will cause some disruption to folks in lightly settled regions.

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • NorthGuyNorthGuy Solar Expert Posts: 1,925 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    BB. wrote: »
    But this is sort of the problem with subsidies in the first place. They "pay" people to go places where infrastructure costs may not be justified. Whether or not that will cause over all price increases or not can be another question (farms that have to go "off grid" and pay more for power, roads, water, no-dams, etc.).

    Farmers around here who need to feed their cows and heat waterers through the winter can easily go to $1000/month in their electric bill, so the $200/month "infrastructure" fee is nothing for them. However, if all "non-farmers" move from the greed because of this high fee, farmers will have to pay way more to support infrastructure and this may become a problem for them too.
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    Governments could also look at net-metering in another light, and that is that you are an entrepreneur, and as such, a business owner.

    The electric coop here, besides requiring the state inspection, lockable disconnects, purchase of a separate meter and socket, and charging a $47.50/month net-metering fee, also require anybody with a grid-tied solar or wind setup to carry a $1 million liability insurance policy that there's only insurance company in the state that has an underwriter that will provide such a thing. The cost of the policy is about $550 per year, meaning you have to "sell" about 300 kWh/month to cover the net-metering fee, and another 300 kWh/month to cover the cost of the insurance policy before you get your first kWh that will be actually credited to your bill after you cover your costs.

    Needless to say, grid-tied net-metering up here is non-existent because nobody can afford to do it. But there are literally hundreds of existing off-grid homes and cabins in the North Woods. In most of the counties they are still legal. In this county they passed an ordinance requiring minimum 100 amp utility service for any new construction, and enforce it by requiring a building permit that entails mandatory inspection by the county building inspector for any new construction. We're in the process of fighting it as we speak because we're putting up a big pole shed on our property to put our fifth wheel camper, our small boat, tractors and machinery, and some storage area. We had to get a building permit and now that we have been issued a permit the building and premises has to inspected and our off-grid home is not grand-fathered in under the ordinance. They are requiring 100 amp utility service on the premises for us to put up our new 60 x 120 foot pole shed.

    We applied for a variance but we have to go to the County Commission meeting in June to argue our case.
    --
    Chris
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,485 admin
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Chris,

    Do they just require a 100 amp main panel and meter socket--Or do they actually require power lines and physical connection to the utility with a monthly bill?

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Actually my utility does break it all out. I just got my bill and for 527 kWh of off peak power I paid $11.87 which is $0.0225 a kWh the actual unbundled generation costs for off peak. Why? Because YTD I have delivered the grid more than I consumed over all, not paying a service delivery charge or any of the other long line transmission charges. This is what they are whining about, I get the battery effect of the grid with my on peak delivery to them free of charge, and really rightfully so because they charge my neighbor with no solar the full cost of the watts I generated for them, including all those long line transmission charges which they never really provided. They in effect get a benefit in early payment for those service that they will need to provide later back to me when I draw from my kWh bank. During peak season I will still hit the YTD total where I draw from them over an above my YTD grid push, then I pay for those charges as well, but after peak season they eventually swing the other way. Then they only pay at year end a nominal fee of $0.065 per kWh but have sold those watts to someone else for full value, another benefit to their bottom line. Bundled On peak rates here are either about $0.175 or $0.254 depending on the tariff the consumer has selected, that looks like a huge profit margin to me, wish I could sell something for 3-4 times what I paid for it.

    I think the current system is pretty fair here, they just don't like the loss in revenue, but in reality their profit margin is higher on my generation than the stuff they generate and deliver. The other consumer has no idea APS didn't run those watts across the transmission system but ends up paying for that.
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    BB. wrote: »
    Chris,

    Do they just require a 100 amp main panel and meter socket--Or do they actually require power lines and physical connection to the utility with a monthly bill?

    They require a working and connected 100 amp utility service, with the bill. That happened because of a doctor that built a large lake home here and they ran powerlines to the doctor's place. But other people built off-grid lake homes on the same lake and didn't connect. The utility went to the Commission and complained about it because they spent the money running the powerlines to the doctor's place, expecting to get the rest of the homes in the development on the same powerlines. When it didn't happen they pulled some strings and got the ordinance passed.
    --
    Chris
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,485 admin
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    Well, that is not right... Does the utility charge for running the lines to your home (I believe there are no utility lines in your immediate area?)? Is there some sort of open ended contract that requires you to maintain the service?

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    BB. wrote: »
    Well, that is not right... Does the utility charge for running the lines to your home (I believe there are no utility lines in your mediate area?)? Is there some sort of open ended contract that requires you to maintain the service?

    You bet they charge, and they charge big to run power lines. To the tune of $168,000 for us back in 2001. We never spent even close to that on our off-grid system.

    They gave the doctor a "good deal" on his power lines, expecting to get the rest of the homes in the development on the lake hooked up to them. For us there is no development so we can't get no "good deal".

    Once the lines are there and everything hooked up according to the requirements of the ordinance, there is some grey areas. They cannot force you to use power off that service. But they can force you to have to pay the $60/month fixed charge. You're right that it's not right. But it's what happens when you got some people on the BoD of the electric coop that are also on the County Commission.
    --
    Chris
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,485 admin
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge

    I wonder if you can get ~$160,000+$60 a month amortized off your assessment/property taxes due to the diminished value of your property due to their new ordinance (and get everyone else without utility power similarly reduced in taxes)?

    All these guys understand is money and their cut... Obviously.

    It is too bad--As you describe your properly/home it is very nearly a small utopia (not that kind--The one where you make choices, and break your back to create and maintain your piece of heaven).

    Government is worse than the mafia these days... They only want their 10% for protection. Government does not even offer protection against "more government".

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    BB. wrote: »
    Government is worse than the mafia these days... They only want their 10% for protection. Government does not even offer protection against "more government".

    Like I said, we're fighting it. One way or another our shed will go up, and they will not force us to comply with the ordinance. We're playing nice and doing all they require as far as applying for our variance. And reasonable people are going to see that running a single residence high voltage line thru a 1/2 mile of woods and swamp to a place that is completely off-grid and will never use the power from it is not practical or reasonable.

    But in the event there is not reasonable people on the Commission we got a good lawyer. And we'll make life so miserable for those people they'll wish they had never heard of a second generation American-Norwegian married to a native Swede, that are not going to be pushed around.

    My wife and I are not afraid of government, nor do we believe in complying with their demands. There has been several times in my life when I have pounded on a government desk, pointed at the person behind it and told them, "Look - you work for me and and I pay your wages. So you listen, and you listen good."
    --
    Chris
  • PanamretireePanamretiree Solar Expert Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    ChrisOlson wrote: »
    Like I said, we're fighting it. One way or another our shed will go up, and they will not force us to comply with the ordinance. We're playing nice and doing all they require as far as applying for our variance. And reasonable people are going to see that running a single residence high voltage line thru a 1/2 mile of woods and swamp to a place that is completely off-grid and will never use the power from it is not practical or reasonable.

    Found an interesting article on the web regarding Michigan's green house emissions at http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Jun11_07/06.shtml.

    Seems the State wants to be proactive, but has not kept up with its promises. Seems the report showed that statewide greenhouse gas emissions increased 9 percent between 1990 and 2002, from 57.4 million metric tons of carbon equivalent to 62.6. In 2002, a third of the emissions resulted from electricity generation, 26 percent came from the transportation sector, and 17 percent from industry.

    Would seem that you are facilitating the State's ability to meet its green house gas emissions target by being carbon neutral considering the State cannot do on its own.

    Just a thought.

    Cheers

    Ernest
  • ChrisOlsonChrisOlson Banned Posts: 1,807 ✭✭
    Re: Dissruptive Challenge
    Would seem that you are facilitating the State's ability to meet its green house gas emissions target by being carbon neutral considering the State cannot do on its own.

    Earnest, the people we're dealing with could care less about greenhouse gas emissions. Their primary concerns are who's doing who, who's got their hands in whose pockets, and whose car is parked next door.
    --
    Chris
Sign In or Register to comment.