![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-858697-100x100.png\")
Bastards...
Bastards...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Next Week: Hybrid and electric car owners to pay $400 fee to oil & gas companies when purchasing their car to offset \"future losses\" due to alternative energy usage.
The story makes sense and I don't think the electric company is being unfair... however my comment was a response to the misleading headline (which the Consumerist is often known for).
Sorry...sarcasm doesn't come across too well in text :-/
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-445010-100x100.png\")
@xl22k: Gasoline is a consumable product. Being connected to a regularly maintained electric grid is a service, which requires upkeep. I believe the fee is justified.
@xl22k: Wow, you must not read very well. The fee is for having an oil pipeline to your front door with a tap that you can turn on and off at your will.
You are free to disconnect the pipeline and stop paying the fee at any time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze,Quatre707: Do you think that dinosaur juice magically materializes from the Middle East to your local gas station in three octanes?
There's quite the infrastructure load to get it to the pump. Same as the electric grid getting it to a doorstep.
So your critique is wrong, XL22K's analogy is correct. And funny. Try again?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: The Week After: Blank CD and DVD buyers pay RIAA Tax for the losses when you invariably pirate and burn that puke inducing atrocity we sell as music.
@MostlyHarmless: In Canada we already have that tax, it's just going to the government instead of the music industry though.
@MostlyHarmless: Had I known that after a date, if the other person didn't put out then they owed me a \"full release\" massage... Well, let's just say my middle school years would have been a LOT more stress-free.
@MostlyHarmless: So... Embedded pictures documenting my ninth-grade Happy Face not appreciated?
*grumble grumble* Whatta stick-in-the-mud...
@xl22k: No, wait. Really? You meant your post to argue for how reasonable XCEL Energy is? That's pretty funny, actually. And genuinely ironic!
OK, seriously, though. Your, MostlyHarmless and my examples use the same logic that the energy company tried to peddle, and they're all equally absurd. So how does these cases not show how unfair their \"Buy our service for $1 or don't buy our service for $0.50\" business model is?
Too late.
They even charged it on MP3 players in Canada once upon a time, up to 25$ extra.
The fact that there's an extra 30 cent surcharge hidden in the price of every CD-R purchased, no matter what it's used for, gets annoying for people burning their own original content. And the levy was still paid even if your burn fails and you wind up with a coaster.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-196743-100x100.png\")
@Several:
The fact that there's an extra 30 cent surcharge hidden in the price of every CD-R purchased, no matter what it's used for, gets annoying for people burning their own original content.
Not entirely accurate if you're speaking about the US-- your reference to Canada makes me think you may be elsewhere. For US readers, here's the \"but...\" in that wikipedia article you linked to, specifically under the section specific to US laws:
This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or \"burn\" music from the computer to CD. A similar royalty applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers.
There's nothing special about CD's labeled \"For Music Use\" unless you're a newbie who enjoys filling the RIAA's coffers. It's been awhile since I've seen CD-R's labeled as such, but no doubt they're still on the shelves somewhere.
@nonzenze: No you can not disconnect the pipeline and get the utility companies stuff off YOUR property. I suggest charging them rent to have their shit on your property if you do not use the grid. The reason people hook up to the grid is to allow the utility to use the power they generated. If they disconnect that means the other homes that are using solar generation from your home can not do so anymore.
Think of it this way. My home is connected to the Comcast wiring for cable tv in my area. I do not use Comcast. I didn't ask them to put their cables on my property, and they did it before i bought it. Should I pay comcast for the convenience of being hooked up to their system that I do not use?
@gaywolverine: Feeding back into the system requires additional hardware. Try running a 120v appliance on a 220v outlet then. The extra voltage does not 'feed back into the system' magically.
As for Comcast, what does that have to do with anything? You are not using their service, or broadcasting from that connection. You are not getting charged.
For cables on your property, get over it. It is call 'easement'.
\"Disconnect\" means just at the meter. And you can get disconnected by the power company quite easily -- stop paying the bill.
Of course, if you want to sell power back to the grid, you can do so on whatever terms are mutually acceptable.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129735-100x100.png\")
In other words, Xcel believes that they own the sun, and any and all benefits that come from the sun. Well, they will be hearing from my lawer about the really bad sunburn I got a few weeks ago while on vacation.
@Rachacha: For the last time, you aren't paying them for the SUN, you are paying for the service of having the grid hooked up to your house, a service that costs them money whether or not your draw power from it.
It costs money to maintain a grid, if you want off the grid, just disconnect.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: Sometimes people use this thing called sarcasm to make things we like to call jokes. Sometimes they don't really mean these things, and are just exaggerating certain portions of the article for comedic effect. It is not your personal responsibility to re-educate them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-248249-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: \"you are paying for the service of having the grid hooked up to your house, a service that costs them money whether or not your draw power from it.\"
So shouldn't ALL customers pay that fee then, since ALL of their customers are connected to the grid? Why should ONLY customers with solar panels pay the fee to connect to the grid, when ALL of their customers are connected to the grid?
ALL gasoline customers must pay gasoline tax, not JUST the customers that drive hybrids.
@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Agreed...a number of people have repeated that logic. It seems that nonzenze has either not read these comments, or has ignored them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-368496-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze:
Seems to be some employees here that work for Electric companies. They are selling power to Xcel so they are doing their part to reduce that coal power plant.
The fact that Companies choosing cash over earth with no regard to waste they create or garbage they produce is what got us in this mess to begin with.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-590531-100x100.png\")
@FrugalFreak: In order for the customer to be able to sell power to Xcel, and also in order for the customer to be able to draw power from Xcel when the solar system isn't sufficient, Xcel has to maintain a massive transmission network. The fee is clearly intended to recoup a small portion of the cost of that network. If the customer wanted to go off the grid entirely, then he or she shouldn't have to pay the fee. If the customer wants to stay on the grid, it makes sense that there's some cost associated with being able to access it.
Think of it this way: If I don't watch TV, but I pay for cable TV service, what am I paying for? I'm paying for the right to turn on the TV and view the programs when I want to.
Selling power back to the company does reduce the need for Xcel to produce electricity, which is good, but it doesn't reduce the need for Xcel to maintain a distribution network. If anything, it adds some complexity and variability to their network that has to be accommodated.
And no I do not now work for, nor have I ever worked for, a power company or affiliated organization.
@MauriceCallidice: But what you and Nonzenze are not understanding is that they want to charge this fee to customers with solar panels, and not to customers without solar panels.
ALL of their customers are connected to the grid whether or not the have solar panels, so shouldn't ALL of their customers have to pay this fee?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-445412-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze:
Yea, and my electric bill is what pays for and maintains that service. People shouldn't be penalized for going out of their way to use less, and that's basically what this extra fee is doing. The only fair solution, is that if you can't maintain the grid, raise the rates on all of your customers.
They could even have a grid maintenance fee that all customers should have to play. Once again, one shouldn't be penalized for taking the effort and expense to reduce their usage.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37550-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: That is fine, and that cost is being repaid by him contributing his excess electricity to his surrounding neighbors. Ergo, that is electricity that the power company does not have to generate but still gets to charge other customers for.
It is like if I added a power plant to my house and said \"I'll give you (the power company) any excess power I generate and you can charge people for it.\" And then the power company wanting to charge you a fee to give them your power.
Disclaimer: some areas require the power company pay the generating consumer the going rate per kWh for the electricity they produce.
@nonzenze: How does it cost them money to have the house hooked up? If you disconnect your service, your house is still hooked up.
@coan_net: Yeah, I think it was worded badly. What he probably meant is that the monthly costs for installing and maintaining his panels is 33-50% of his prior electric bill, not that his electric bill went down by 50-67%. I could be wrong, though.
You know, in the world of fees out the wazoo, I had suspected that more companies would start to charge corkage-type fees ... fees for NOT spending money.
Examples of what is to come: an airline fee for not checking a bag, a fee to oil and gas companies for buying a hybrid or electric card (as xl22k proposed above), a laundromat fee for taking your clothes home to hang them instead of using a dryer.
@TCama: No real surprise here...guarantee you if more people conserve electricity, the power companies will raise their rates to make up for it (\"cuz we's got teh stockholders to think about!\").
That laundromat scenario is sort of doable...charge out the wazoo to use the washers but rebate some of it if you use their dryers. Obviously they'd need some kind of card payment for it...can't see a viable way to do it with change.
@catnapped: It is partially because the second some business or lobbyist cries \"profits\" everyone stops and bends to their demands.
We do not owe anyone a profit. It is up to them to figure out a business model that people are willing to accept. In the realm of public utilities and things like air, water and health care we do not owe anyone a profit. We got into these public/private agreements long ago to appease business interests. The deal was supposed to be that we let private industry do these things in trade for a moderate profit. Now they are whining they are not making big enough or larger profits or whining about shareholders. If they can't manage on smaller profit margins then we need to turn those utilities back into publicly owned services.
@catnapped: Actually, reduced peak usage (solar is max @4PM when usage is peak) will save the power company money by reducing capital costs.
Power company costs go up with PEAK usage.
Power company revenues go up with AVERAGE usage.
The closer they are, the better for the company.
Sucks that it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of how the power company works though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87038-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: And it sucks for you that it trashes your rationale for charging electricity customers with solar generation systems extra for having the solar systems and the grid. If they are home at that time using all their solar output plus some power from the grid, they're at least reducing the peak demand for the utility thereby saving the utility money. If they're NOT home, they're probably providing some power out to the grid to be used by other grid customers without solar generation, thereby reducing peak demand and saving the utility money. You, however, expect them to pay the utility for helping the utility out. Care to spin the justification wheel again?
@GearheadGeek: Don't you LOVE it when Corporatists end up providing arguments against their position? Shame they lack the self-awareness to see it before clicking Submit, then adding at the end, \"Hey - on second though, you're right. Thanks!\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103994-100x100.png\")
I don't understand the story. In one sentence the home owner says that the solar panels provide between 33-50 percent of their electricity.
Then in the next sentence, they say they are providing the electricity for 5-6 other houses.
HUH? Which is it?
It was my understanding if you can make your own electricity, and make more then you need, your meter will actually start to run backwards with the electricity going OUT of your house, in which the power company would then owe you money for the electricity that you provide to their network.
Plus is the fee - is it a fee when someone just has solar panels, or is it a fee to hook up the panels to the electrical network?
This story is just confusing to me.
@coan_net: Because 33-50% of your day is actually night. And the moon don't generate much in the way of solar power!
@coan_net: Overflow power. During peak times of the day they can produce more than their house uses so they send it to the grid to power other homes in the area. So say from 8am to 10am they provide enough juice for just their house. From 10am to 3pm they provide enough for their house and a few others in the neighborhood. From 3pm to 8pm they provide enough to just run their house. From 8pm to 8am they pull electricity from the grid because without batteries they don't have any stored up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159929-100x100.png\")
@coan_net:
during the day, when it's bright and sunny, they are probably generating more electricity than they need and selling it back.
At night, or on a cloudy day, they don't have any to power their house and have to buy it.
@coan_net: The other houses are connected to the grid, so if everything in his house is shut off, his neighbor is in effect using his solar panels.
@coan_net: Well, one explanation is that it would be easy to use a lot of electricity at your home (turn on all your lights, have everyone using a computer at once, appliances and whatnot, on and on) so the panels cannot provide all of that power.
But what happens when you aren't home and nothing is turned on? Well, you hook up the solar system so that it can provide power back out into the grid.
@coan_net:
I think that when the sun is out, the homeowner doesn't draw power from the grid, and in fact provides power BACK to the grid for 5-6 other house.
However, at night, he needs to draw power FROM the grid.
So over a month, the solar panels lower his usage 33-50%, because they are useless at night and he still needs to draw power from the grid.
Any xcel customers out there want to look at their bills and see if there is a fee NOT based on kilowatt-hours such as admin, customer or account fee? My utility charges me to be a customer regardless of how much power I use, then also charges me a per kWH fee for usage.
Like many things, the pricing scheme doesn't perfectly reflect the cost to provide the service. There's a cost associated with having a Burger King ready to serve you a Whopper, but obviously they can't charge you for that benefit unless you actually buy one. There's a benefit associated with having a Burger King even if you don't go there -- it makes the lines shorter at Wendy's, but they can't charge you for that.
It's much the same with electricity. There are costs associated with maintaining the grid itself, with being able to provide for peak demand, and with maintaining the wiring and equipment that you need to access the grid.
Most consumers prefer flat rating. Even if costs the electric company more to provide them electricity in summer at peak time, they'd prefer a flat rate year round because it makes their bill easier to understand.
The problem occurs when you have a class of customers for whom the normal averaging doesn't work. For example, if lots of people started drawing power just at peak time and using no power at all off peak, either the electric companies would have to put these people on time of use billing whether they wanted or not, or they would have to increase everybody's rates to cover the costs of supplying the higher peak load.
It's the same here. People with solar panels don't buy as much electricity, but it costs at least as much to maintain the grid for them, maintain their meter, and provide them peak power when the sun isn't shining.
It really is only fair to charge them a higher rate for the power they do use or to maintain their equipment. However, because we really do need to reduce our total electrical usage, pollution from fossil fuels, and dependence on solar power, it really makes sense for us to subsidize those who reduce their total power usage.
So go ahead and raise everyone else's rates the 1% it will take.
@David Schwartz: \"For example, if lots of people started drawing power just at peak time and using no power at all off peak...\"
Peak times for electric use are generally during the daytime hours when business and factories along with households are all consuming electricity, and air conditioning units are all operating. It is during this time when solar customers are most likely to be \"off grid\" and therefore not consuming electricity. Solar customers typically need to purchase electricity in the evening or during extended periods when there is no sun.
I've reduced my power usage 20% over the last few years, without solar, do I owe them a fee too? I'm using the grid less as well.
this person is paying for the grid he uses. He found a way to reduce his usage of the grid so he pays less. Same as if he had installed a more efficient air conditioner and a programmable thermostat like I did.
In fact the power company is seeing more of a benefit because solar reduces power usage during the daylight hours, where usage is significantly higher. Enough solar panels and they can not build the extra power plant they need to feed daytime usage, that's a heck of a savings to them.
@Kevinv: \"this person is paying for the grid he uses. He found a way to reduce his usage of the grid so he pays less. Same as if he had installed a more efficient air conditioner and a programmable thermostat like I did.\"
No, he's using the grid MORE because he's taking power out and putting power back in. Your theory is like saying that if I drive 1000 miles north on the tollway and then 200 miles south on the tollway, I should only owe them for 800 miles.
Pretend for a second that the toll-company could not measure the total amount you drive (north + south) but only the net distance (north - south). How should they bill you?
@nonzenze:
Anything a person with solar panels is putting into the grid is then sold by the power company to somebody else, usually at a profit since for business users, at least, power sold in the daytime is sold for more than at night.
The grid isn't being resized for the people with solar panels, they don't need bigger wires and any equipment needed to bridge the solar to the grid is paid for by the home owner, not the power company.
For toll roads you can argue that extra miles put extra wear and tear on the roads and therefore the fee should be based on total miles travelled. But the grid doesn't work that way, there is no extra wear and tear running it backwards, you're moving electrons over wires not vehicles on roads.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-901728-100x100.png\")
@Kevinv: I think your point about the difference in cost of electricity during the day/night being different is really important.
Most US utilities don't pay the actual rate to customers that it would cost them to generate the electricity. That is, during peak usage, electricity becomes very expensive to produce. The folks who have solar panels actually are selling back peak usage electricity to the utility at average usage prices, which already benefits the utility heavily and prevents them from having to use their most expensive power plants.
Unless customer bills reflect that they are giving energy back at the most valuable times, they shouldn't be paying higher bills to the energy company's double benefit.
@nonzenze: Technology exists and is in use to track how much energy you are using, and how much you are inserting back into the network and can bill you as appropriate for it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462541-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze:
Pretend for a second that the toll-company could not measure the total amount you drive (north + south) but only the net distance (north - south). How should they bill you?
The net distance. And, AFAIK, they do only charge you for the net distance. I can drive up and down a high way to my heart's content. It's only when I get off at an exit that I get charged. (Granted, turning around to go south isn't always as easy...)
Same is true when I ride the subway. Either it's a flat rate for a ride, no matter where I end up (Boston) or it's based on where I get on and off (D.C.), but neither actually tracks my ride. I can ride the length multiple times for the same fee.
I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming that there is no fee that already covers grid usage. In most areas (YMMV) people with solar panel have bi-directional meters which does a lot of the calculation for them. Energy in charges one rate, energy out credits a different rate. Is this not the way Xcel does things?
Regardless, the guy who made the original announcement clearly botched the job. He hasn't explained his point clearly enough, and made Xcel just sound like money-grubbing bastards. If there is a valid point to the new fee, they've lost a lot more in good will currently.
@mmmsoap: Not sure about your toll roads, but the PA Turnpike explicitly prohibits turning around at any location prior to paying the toll.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@MauriceCallidice: As far as I can tell, the PA Turnpike is a total ripoff in general. Their tolls were so egregiously high compared to those in other states that I actually felt like not spending any money in the Pennsylvania economy while going through out of spite. Then when I Googled it I found out that PA is subsidizing the rest of their roads using the turnpikes. So it's no wonder.
Golden Poo award candidate?
There is of course a cost to maintain the grid, however that cost would not go down if his house was disconnected. If they wish to charge him a fee for using less power fine, but he should be allowed to to charge whatever rate he wishes for the power he sells back to them. I believe it was mentioned that he generates most of his excess power at peak usage times.
It was a stupid idea to give any company a monopoly be it phone, water, power or internet. None of these companies paid for the grids they \"own\" if they weren't paid for totally by the government they were paid for by loans with no interest or loans that were later forgiven.
They're already paying retail for the power he sends back to the grid. If he wanted to charge them more than that, they could tell him to pound sand - and then his solar panels would be generating energy that goes to waste.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Anything requiring a wire/pipe to individual homes can not work well as anything but a monopoly. Having multiple wires/pipes for various water, landline, electric and cable providers would be a confusing mess, with multiple service outages anytime they tried to install any utilities. This is why most people have one landline phone company and 6 wireless ones.
While data service (phone and cable) can be forced to share their lines with competitors, providing competition despite this. Electricity, however, is all the same, unlike data.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1201340-100x100.png\")
1. Using your own solar panels to generate electricity a green endeavor.
2. The legal monopoly of an electricity distributor (your electric company) would be engaging in anti-competitive behavior by charging such a fee.
I suspect that his state's utilities commission or regulatory agency might have a huge problem with this. State and local governments everywhere are jumping on the Obama bandwagon in advancing green energy concepts.
but the legal monopoly of the electric distributor (your electric company)
Ok so that post got kinda screwy and idk why.
But I should also point out that building and operating a solar powered roof is certainly not a free ride. It generally takes 10-20 years to break even on the expense, and that's WITH many thousands of dollars of tax incentives!
While I normally favor reducing our carbon footprint whenever possible, in this case, I'd be in favor of dousing a random Xcel Energy exec with gasoline then giving the next person trying to make a difference who receives a similar letter the option of lighting the match.
This is just pure greed on the part of Xcel. If I had the money to invest, I would go off the grid, and install solar panels.
@108Reliant: The problem is that these houses aren't off the grid. The fee is in fact for their connection to the grid. If they went off the grid, there wouldn't be a charge.
I know some people that are going through a similar fight with our local garbage company. They recycle and compost damn near everything and what little \"garbage\" they do generate, 1 single medium garbage bag per month, they take down to the dump themselves. They're being sued for not subscribing to weekly pickup service.
They've also been completely off the electric grid for 2 years and thankfully PG&E has thus far left them alone.
Sadly they predict a future fight since they collect rainwater, which happens to be against the law in most of the country, and recycle their grey water for irrigation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
@krispykrink: Collecting rainwater is against the law? Where do you get this information from?
\"Parts of Colorado\" is the only place I can find where it is illegal (although I don't doubt someone will fight this). That's not \"most of the country.\"
@doctor_cos: Actually, it's any state where underlying mineral rights are parceled out separate from real rights. So it's far more than just isolated parts of CO. And the fact that mining conglomerates are demanding such an absurd claim with a straight face makes it worthy of noting.
@Trai_Dep: Yikes!
I did not know this was happening. This sort of bull---- law needs to be challenged.
@doctor_cos: It's also illegal in Washington state and Utah. Tucson just modified their laws to make it legal. It's illegal in many Western states that are agriculture-dependent and don't necessarily get a lot of rain - rain that is collected by homeowners doesn't drain into the water system for general use.
I don't know if these laws are prevalent back East, but they are in the West, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are around in parts of the Midwest as well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-468735-100x100.png\")
Did Henry Ford have to pay a fee to the buggy whip industry?
As someone who suffers the insult of a \"deregulated\" electricity market, there are plenty of reasonable alternative plans that would accomplish this without particularly penalizing customers with solar. There are several plans available to me that have a minimum-usage fee built into the structure. If you use more than X kWh/month, you pay the fee but if you use X or more the fee isn't added because you're paying more than enough in actual usage to offset that base charge. There are other plans that always have the base charge, and some (like the one I'm on) that have only the charges everyone pays (the ones approved by the PUC that go to the \"lines\" company) and the charge for usage*rate-per-kWh. Interestingly enough, my plan also had the lowest charge per kWh of any of the available plans, in addition to skipping the penalty if you don't use enough.
@GearheadGeek: duh... that should read \"If you DON'T use more than X kWh/month, you pay the fee...\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352646-100x100.png\")
I believe this is the same Xcel that runs this place, [www.xcelenergycenter.com] so maybe they are just trying to recoup their naming rights dollars? OTOH, they could be greedy. Sort of like my wonderful electrical company here in NYC, Consolidated Edison. We get a supply charge (ok, that concept is fine). But we also get a Merchant Function Charge, a Gross Receipts Tax as well as other tax surchages. And those are just on the supply part. On the delivery side we get a Delivery Charge (again, ok concept as it covers the infrastructure to deliver us the juice), The System Benefits Charge/Renewable Portfolio Standard charges, which fund New York State renewable energy, environmental and other related public policy programs; Temporary NY State Surcharge @0.4473ยข/kWh $2.46, which
covers new fees imposed by the state; and again those GRT & related surchages. Oh, don't forget the 4% sales tax for the state. But get this: the phrase double taxation gets used here. Because it's not just the supply & the delivery charges that get taxed; no, the sales tax is applied to all the fees and surcharges as well. My most recent bill showed I used 550kWh for the month. Including all those taxes and fees and whatnot, my per kWh charge is 26.1510 cents per kWh.
@nybiker: OOPS. I forgot one biggie fee:
Basic service charge $14.65. Charge for basic system infrastructure and customer-related services,
including customer accounting, meter reading and meter
maintenance. A billing and payment processing charge of $0.94, which may be avoided by switching to an energy services company (ESCO), is also included.
And I read my own meter and submit the info online to them via their website. Can't I get a break for saving them some effort of not having to read my meter?
Ok, I understand that some fees/whatnot aren't the result of Con Ed shafting us, but rather the state doing it.
I don't think it's sunny enough for us here in NYC to be able to get solar panels anytime soon.
BTW, although I forgot to mention the service charge in my original comment, I did include it when I was doing the per kWh charge, as I had looked at the total on my bill.
@nybiker: While it's true that those charges are approved by the state utilities commission (whatever NY happens to call theirs, it's the PUC here) don't trick yourself into believing that most of those fees weren't dreamed up by the utility and bribed...er... lobbied into regulations by the PUC.
@GearheadGeek: Yeah, here in the Empire State it's called the Public Service Commission. Amazing, isn't it, how all these agencies have nice consumer-friendly names, but always seem to be anti-consumer. Well, maybe not always. And if not anti-consumer, at least somewhat more-in-favor-of-the-utilities.
According to their website, [www.dps.state.ny.us] this is their goal:
\"The Department of Public Service has a broad mandate to ensure that all New Yorkers have access to reliable and low-cost utility services. The Department is the staff arm of the Public Service Commission. The Commission regulates the state's electric, gas, steam, telecommunications,and water utilities. The Commission also oversees the cable industry. The Commission is charged by law with responsibility for setting rates and ensuring that adequate service is provided by New York's utilities. In addition, the Commission exercises jurisdiction over the siting of major gas and electric transmission facilities and has responsibility for ensuring the safety of natural gas and liquid petroleum pipelines.\"
\"Department staff represents all ratepayers and the public interest in Commission proceedings, sets service and operating standards for utilities, and administers regulations issued by the Commission. Staff responsibilities include advising the Commission on all decisions it must make in matters such as rate determinations, utility financing, and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need; representing the Commission in state and federal proceedings that have an impact on New York consumers and a bearing on how the Commission carries out its legislative mandate; representing the Commission in state and federal court proceedings; developing and implementing state regulatory and energy policies; receiving, investigating and resolving complaints on billing, services, or other utility practices; and inspecting and reviewing utility equipment and apparatus necessary for rendering service to the public.\"
But yet in my lifetime, we've had 3 big blackouts in NYC as well as a few localized, but nonetheless destructive, ones as well. One would think by now the big shots would have ensured Con Ed would take measures to ensure these things don't happen so often and when they do they treat their customers right (talk to the folks in Western Queens who are still suffering after the 2006 blackout - [en.wikipedia.org] and you'll hear some not-so-kind-words about their treatment).
@nybiker: Cascade Natural Gas, in Washington State, has a customer charge (flat monthly), gas charge (charge of the gas) and delivery charge (charge of delivering it to me). No hidden fees or games.
The state also has a functional utilities commission.
Whoever has these crooks should urge their state's attorney general's office to investigate these bums.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
my power company will buy your excess power and put you in contact with the state's renewable resource program which will pay you for setting up renewable resources. i need a new roof before i can go around installing anything on it, but it's certainly something i am considering.
So, customers with solar panels get charged, in effect, a higher rate per kw consumed. Pardon me sir, but that's bullshit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7101-100x100.png\")
Why is it that the normal, sane, NOT \"OMFG EVIL R{OIWHJEPNV($WG\" comments on either side promoting rational debate and logical reasoning get buried in a thread?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7874-100x100.png\")
While the moron from Xcel stated the problem very poorly, I think I understand their issues.
There is a major problem with any grid-tied installation that claims to generate 100% of their energy needs from wind or solar. Without an appropriately sized battery bank, when the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining, you're dependent on the grid to keep things running. Xcel (or whomever) needs to keep enough generation capacity available 24x7 to meet your needs.
Let's say I install twice as many solar panels as I need for my usual usage. While the sun is up I'm selling electricity back to the grid. (Keep in mind that almost no utilities buy back at retail; they pay you an 'avoided cost' rate that is a fraction of retail.) Theoretically, I could generate enough during the day to offset my usage at night. My electric bill could be zero (plus the account minimum).
The key point is that even though my net electric usage is ZERO, the utility needs to maintain enough facilities to provide 100% of my energy needs when the sun isn't shining (or my batteries run down).
While I'd never try to put words into some PR droid's mouth, I suspect this is the point of the proposed charge.
If Jacoby has enough generating capacity, and is willing to risk being in the dark occasionally, he could avoid the charge by going off-grid.
@The Tick: While that is true, you're neglecting another factor: the fact that the customer with the excess solar generating capacity is actually REDUCING their need to generate power during the day by feeding energy back into the grid. Moreover, since it's the daytime, that would actually be power supplied to the grid at a peak demand time (although that could change if a lot of people started installing excess solar capacity). And finally, if the grid were efficient enough (I have no idea if it is), it could be even more efficient because the power supplied by the excess solar capacity would already be close to another place where it is used (e.g., a neighboring house without solar panels, rather than having to travel from a power plant), thus reducing loss of energy to transmission inefficiencies.
So while you do have a point there, I think that whatever costs are associated with generating the \"free\" power for these customers at night would be more than outweighed by the savings to the utility associated with them supplying power back to the grid. If not, they simply need to adjust downwards what they credit the customers for electricity. In other words, the solar customers ARE paying for their nighttime electricity...they're just paying with daytime electricity rather than money.
@The Tick:
That's a very good point - if 50% of your customers have solar panels, you need to be prepared to provide them with power if the sun's blocked. I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps these people SHOULD be paying an extra amount.
@wrjohnston19283: Or they could restructure their billing to better reflect the true cost of service: everyone should be charged a fee (using the same structure) for being connected to the grid, then the actual energy used can be added on to that, presumably at a lower rate than the current combined cost. Solar customers who generate enough excess power to pay for being connected still make money.
This is brilliant! Airlines were looking for the next new fee, now they can charge flyers on other airlines a fee for not using their airline because otherwise they're not helping pay their fair share of the gate fees. For the airline they're not on.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21380-100x100.png\")
In other news. Comcast proposes a fee for people who dare to watch TV off the air. T-Mobile imposes a fee for customers who use a landline instead of a mobile handset. Burger-King imposes a tax on people who decide to cook at home!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-127871-100x100.png\")
Preventative is NOT a word!!
My local co-op electrical provider charges a customer monthly fee. They only recently decided to allow customers to \"sell\" excess solar power back to their grid.
Anyway, this problem will surface with the hybrids - because the gas tax was determined for \"use of road\" using old CAFE standards. Why should the hybrids pay less in gas tax for using the road just because they get better gas mileage??? That is the conundrum facing the DOT and the states right now.
Unfortunately the best solution will be horrible for privacy rights. The worst solution is to raise the gax tax to match the hybrid CAFE standard.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-147328-100x100.png\")
Henley had better shut his trap or his board is going to kick him out for ruining the company's image.
If Xcel is hard up for cash that bad, then he'd better find other ways or they are going under mighty fast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-112280-100x100.png\")
that's funny. our electricity company pays for the extra electricity you make (because they use it and saves them money too!)
Screw him. If he does not want to pay the fee, then he can cut the line and go 100% off the grid.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78160-100x100.png\")
Okay , people , simmer down here.
This fee is not a fee...Yet. The public utility regualtory commission in Colorado has to allow the fee to be charged. That is anything but a sure thing. I haven't lived in Colorado , but a lot of western states are quite libertarian and pro consumer in their outlook and have a natural distrust of any large entity that wants to pluck money from their customers. There is even a public comment period for enraged consumers to shout this idea down in front of the commissioners. (Although the people most motivated to do just that are nowhere near critical mass.\"Normal\" customers just shrug and call it someone else's problem) .
I would have no problem with a one time fee for a bi directional meter or special interconnection point to sell power back to Xcel (to offset costs for non solar users), but a monthly fee is probably going too far.It would be come a corporate piggy bank that could be jacked up every time that profits were down.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8966-100x100.png\")
Something similar was reported in the news back in the 90's. A guy and his son dug a water well for their home. The town's water department decided they needed to be charged a fee for not using the town's water supply. The town got their water from a reservoir and these guys tapped into a natural spring in the back of their house.
Not sure of the outcome of that one but I do remember that the spring didn't feed the town's reservoir, so there wasn't a 'theft of resources'.
As to this case, aren't electrical companies required by the feds to pay back a person who contributes electricity to the grid? Shouldn't that cover this crazy fee?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
If he's generating enough power for 5 houses, why did his bill drop by just 1/3? He should be collecting money from the electric company for the power he's selling them. If his solar panels are generating so much in excess of his needs and the power company won't buy his surplus, he should just get off the grid completely.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-605077-100x100.png\")
Aren't there connectivity fees already? It used to be we were charged for the amount of energy we used, but if we cut back the electrical company didn't make enough, so they began charging a flat rate connectivity fee, and charge for usage on top of that.
\"Way to finally take a stand against those tree-hugging environmentalists trying to help reduce our dependence on oil.\"
We burn very little oil to produce electricity in the US. The great majority of it comes from burning coal, of which, this country is rich.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7115-100x100.png\")
Private businesses have NO RIGHT to hold people's lives and power hostage in a monopolistic fashion over a resource needed to live to begin with but especially not if they generate their own power.
If the government (public utility commission bought sold and paid for by X-Hell), and the press (too busy covering big boobs, balloon boys, Sarah Palin and Lindsay Loser-han) won't do their respective jobs and protect and warn the public, then we're getting to the point that force (rioting) and terrorism (direct threats against the executives threatening public welfare for profit) are our only tools left.
I think the power company is, in fact, providing the solar-customers with a valuable service -- they are hooking them up to the network so that they can receive power if they want. Creating and maintaining a power grid is a fixed cost to which the company is entitled to collect a measly $1.90 a month.
If the solar folks want to not pay the fee, they are free to disconnect from the grid entirely. It's a free country, after all.
@nonzenze: Wow there is a crazy amount of rationalizing going on here. Here are things from the business perspective. Distribution company buys electricity from power generating companies based on forecasting. They feed the same amount of power on the grid wether people use it or not. They can only charge if people user electricity, they are always paying the same amount to charge the grid. Now the easiest thing to say is change the forecasting models based on new sources being available. Here is the issue first the new sources are not guaranteed reliable so they can't include them in the forecast. Second the power coming back on the grid that are paying retail for not wholesale, no profit.
So everything here boils down to a company with fixed costs and less income due to alternate energy. This seems fine to all of us until a tree falls on a power line and there is no one to fix the downed power line.
I see 2 possible resolutions. First being energy sold back to the grid is sol at whole sale rates (customer will bitch like mad at this first solution). Second is to determine linemen / materials cost for the grid. Split that cost among all customers and remove that amount from each persons usage for electricity ie Electricity used - Grid Maintenance + Grid Maintenance = Bill, negative numbers are not allowed. Now everyone is sharing the grid costs and paying for their electricity.
@nonzenze:
Solar folks can't disconnect. In most places if you have grid power disconnected, the govt/police comes and condemns your property and evicts you under \"unfit for human occupation\" health/building codes.
@nonzenze: And if they need to use electricity from xcel, they pay for it. All this fee comes down to is just a fee that is being assessed so that xcel can maintain part of their revenue stream. If more of their customers go with solar or wind, they lose money.
This is why our country needs to have government control of the utilities, to stop commercial interest in only looking out for themselves and their stockholders. Think of how much cheaper broadband and television would be if there wasn't companies like TWC and comcast always nickel and diming their customers. Think of the savings when they aren't paying $36 million a year for the Brian Roberts.
If you really want efficiency, how about this?
Customers could organize cooperatively. They could then have a drive to put solar panels on every home and share electricity on the grid, splitting all costs evenly amongst the users themselves. They would get electricity at cost, would be less subject to outages and problems but still able to take advantage of the grid.
@nonzenze: Anybody who ever uses the line \"It's a free country, after all.\" is an utter fool. Not free to not file an income tax return, not free to not register for selective service, not free to drive without a license, so stop believing the lie of a free country.
The grid is part of the cost of doing business for a utility. The utility also gets a MONOPOLY, AND gets to use property they do not own. If we want to make it fair I suggest those utility companies start buying property where they want to put their service. I personally believe a utility company should be a government run entity NOT designed to make a profit (like roads) since there is no practical way to have true competition of delivery.
@nonzenze: Xcel also gets power at wholesale FROM those people who have solar panels thus lowering how much Xcel has to generate. This is the same company whining how they need to raise rates because people are using so much power they will need to build new plants.
Xcel has managed to block South Dakota from allowing grid tied solar and wind on homes. The amount of control they have over our state legislature is disgusting.
A grid tied system has advantages beyond having the utility as a back up power source. It is easier and cheaper to grid tie a system rather than having two systems that have to switch back and forth.
@nonzenze:
My gas company charges me a customer charge each month (that changes each month) but varies from $10-$14. During the summer I only use gas for cooking and drying clothing, and often use less than 3 therms per month (compared to 80+ in the winter). My July bill was $12, of which $10 was the customer charge.
I'm waiting for my electric water heater to die so I can replace it with a gas model, which not only is more efficient than electric, but will also help justify the customer charge in the summer.
My electric company also charges an account fee each month - claims to use this to pay for things like admin and upkeep of the system. If xcel already charges this fee, then they should not be charging solar customers more. If they don't charge the fee, then I can see some justification for it.
My water/sewer bill is the only utility I have that doesn't have an account fee, and I'm pretty sure they get subsidized by property taxes.
@nonzenze:
Um...
These customers already pay those charges as pay of their electric bills. Just like the customers who don't have solar panels.
Unless the company is going to charge everyone a fee for \"Creating and maintaining a power grid\" then your argument is completely fallacious.
The company's argument, while impressively claiming that they need to charge fees for something that costs them nothing extra, makes no claim that the solar customers are costing them any additional money.
@nonzenze: Currently, solar panels are not quite efficient enough to allow most people to live completely \"off grid\". In fact, the OP says that he is only reducing his monthly bill between 30-50%, presumably because he is using less electricity, and as well, because he generating electricity and \"selling\" it to the utility so they can sell that energy to his neighbors and make a profit off of the energy generated by the OP's panels.
The utility is still getting money from solar customers, and they are being fairly compensated for the energy the customers are using, and buying the energy at a greatly reduced rate from him.
Once solar panels become the norm, I suspect that utility rates will skyrocket because it will be some time before we are able to go completely \"off grid\" and people will be willing to pay high fees for the convenience of a reliable backup (much easier than a gas generator)