PUC Hearings Slated on Xcel's Solar-Killing Proposals

9 thoughts on “PUC Hearings Slated on Xcel’s Solar-Killing Proposals”

1. Great info, mama. I get monthly bills from Black Hills Energy for a property in their service area, a property that is only occupied a few days per month. Even now, on the verge of summer, and with nothing running there but a small refrigerator, my most recent monthly electric bill from Black Hills was nearly $50, and the previous month's bill was nearly $56. It's unfortunate that the local governments in Black Hills service area haven't united on behalf of their residents, to fight this disastrous company.

   Log in to Reply

2. Great info, mama…thanks.

   The hustle never stops…..

   Log in to Reply

3. I have residential solar panels and benefit from net metering. This time of year, my production exceed my consumption, and I am able to "bank" kW for future use. It is a boon to me at Xcel's expense in that they have to "buy" my excess production at their own retail rate. They supply the grid but make no profit off of my production. But there would seem to be a much simpler solution than grid charges.  Why doesn't Xcel have varying rates based on peak usage?  My panels produce excess electricity during long sunny days when demand is highest.  Why isn't Xcel charging customers more for electricity at peak usage?  That would allow them to "sell" my excess at a premium, and the net metering credits that I receive would be used by me at night (when my panels produce nothing) and when demand and rates are lower. Grid charges will not kill residential solar. But they will encourage me, and others like me, to get batteries (as they become affordable) and get off the grid completely.  

   Log in to Reply

   1. In the real world, the need to main an electric grid for that 70 percent of the time when the sun doesn't shine enough for intermittent sources is real and needs to be paid for somehow,  But Early worm's solution, a surcharge for peak use, is a worthy means toward that end.  It would also encourage more storage, as he notes, and thus encourage more green power.  The PUC should consider his thoughts.

      Log in to Reply

      1. V – the inverse is true for their coal plants. Night load is always negligible, yet they demand we find ways to pay them to keep their plants running full-on, 24/7. That 18th-century technology served us well even up to  20 years ago. It's well past time for it to go. For lots of reasons, not the least is the societal costs of its negative externalities, estimated at $500 billion annually from a national perspective. 

         Great job, MamaJ

         Log in to Reply

   2. If I'm reading the Denver Post reporting on Xcel's proposal correctly, they are proposing to cut those Solar Rewards programs you benefit from. Xcel also has a battery pilot program in its proposal; they want to partner with Panasonic to have consumers buy and try out some battery storage systems.

      Now if Xcel is true to form, after finding out whatever on the home-battery research, they will find some way to penalize customers who store their electrical energy overnight. Xcel truly does not want a distributed-grid system, and will connive any number of green-sounding methods to discourage it.

      Log in to Reply

4. I'm wondering if a small change in rate structures for solar provided to the grid couldn't help make the utilities more willing partners?  The excess solar from consumers would be essentially worthless without the grid/utilities infrastructure, why should utilities pay the same end-user rate to consumers for the excess power they produce?  Seems to me a reasonable profit incentive to the utilities is not unjustified, and would solve many problems?

   Log in to Reply

   1. That would be something to be negotiated, Dio, between consumers, solar contractors, and the utilities. The PUC as it exists now is not a fair broker. They are biased towards utilities. The missing piece is that there have to be options for consumers: like more than one utility, like living off grid as early worm proposes, like….I don't even know, because it isn't really my field.

      In Pueblo, Black Hills Energy is a monopoly – the only game in town in its service area. Where I live now, the Pawnee power plant, 100% coal, is the only utility available unless you self-install solar or burn wood.

      In the Denver area, I believe that you sometimes have options for utilities, at least in where you locate and where you live within the metro area.

      So  one task of people who work in this area would be to make the PUC less friendly to monopolies, give consumers viable options for how to heat and power their homes and businesses. You know, capitalism. The free market. The PUC that Hick has chosen is monopoly-friendly, not consumer-friendly.

      Which is all to say that I'm not at all opposed to a reasonable profit incentive for the utilities, as that is part of the capitalist free-market system. But the playing field has to be leveled so that renewables are not penalized. And real antitrust legislation needs to be implemented.

      Otherwise, that “small profit incentive” mushrooms to Black Hills 315% profit in one year. I think that was the statistic, although I’d have to look it up. It was something obscene like that.

      And their flak catchers and spinners go out into the community and greenwash it and try to make it seem like they truly have consumer’s needs at heart.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Thanks for that information, and the diary. My questions are truly just that, I am functionally uninformed in these matters and their interplay.  The one principle that I do know is that entrenched interests and powers-that-be almost always have have to be drug kicking and screaming into the future, change is almost always viewed by that ilk as a loss. 

         Log in to Reply