Xcel Proposes 'back-up power" fee for solar homes

Xcel proposes "backup power" fee for solar homes

DENVER — Solar panels used to power homes in Colorado are emissions free and having access to traditional fossil-fuel generated backup electrical power is also free, for now.
Xcel Energy is seeking to change that by proposing a rate increase for solar customers that the state's largest power supplier said pays for providing electricity in case those homes need it.
Xcel is proposing a 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour fee based on the generating capacity of a home's solar panels. The proposed fee would be along with actual electricity used and a $7 to $8 service fee now charged to cover meter reading and billing.
Current solar customers would be exempt.
The Public Utilities Commission will hold a hearing on Xcel's proposed fee on Aug. 5.
Members of the solar panel industry oppose the fee, saying homeowners installing solar panels allow Xcel to add carbon-free energy while using existing infrastructure, saving the company money on construction and transmission lines.
They say installing panels also helps Xcel meet a state mandate that the compnay generate 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
"It's going to have a tremendously negative effect on the solar industry in Colorado if Xcel's proposal is approved," Blake Jones, president of Namaste Solar in Boulder told the Daily Camera. "Solar-system owners are actually providing a benefit to the utility, to the grid and to other rate payers."
Solar customers are net-metered, which means they receive credit for excess electricty produced by the solar panels that flows into Xcel's power grid.
Jones said Xcel could become the first utility to charge net-metered solar customers a fee for having access to electricity in the grid.
"This is something that's not happening anywhere in the country," Jones said. "This is not a good thing. This is not part of the vision we have for Colorado's new energy economy."
Xcel spokesman Tom Henley defended the proposed hike.
"We have to build the system so the customer can use as much energy as they want," Xcel spokesman Tom Henley said. "Right now, solar customers have this backup to the grid for free."
___
Information from: Daily Camera, http://www.dailycamera.com/

July 25, 2009 - 4:10 p.m. MDTCopyright 2009, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Higher cap by utility panel could help Rifle increase solar energy

Higher cap by utility panel could help Rifle increase solar energy

By DENNIS WEBB/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

Saturday, July 04, 2009

The city of Rifle’s hopes of fully powering a new waste- water treatment plant with renewable energy are in the hands of a state regulatory commission.

The city is waiting for the Public Utilities Commission to decide whether to lift a 2-megawatt-per-customer cap on net metering of renewable energy. An administrative law judge has made a recommendation in the city’s favor.

Net metering allows customers with their own renewable energy installations to be credited for energy they produce that exceeds their consumption of a utility’s power.

Although the cap doesn’t affect most consumers, Rifle has the largest municipal solar installation in the state. It includes a 1.7-megawatt array for the treatment plant and a 0.6-megawatt system for a raw water intake plant.

It would take a 4-megawatt system to fully power the city’s wastewater treatment plant.

Mike Braaten, the city’s government affairs director, raised the issue with the state as the PUC began considering a much broader rewrite of rules pertaining to renewable energy standards approved by state voters in 2004.

Denver and Boulder also have joined in voicing concern about the cap, in Denver’s case because it has a large solar array at Denver International Airport.

Some cities recommended an exemption for municipal customers.

Xcel Energy supported a cap consisting of the lesser of 2 megawatts or 120 percent of a customer’s average annual electricity consumption.

In April, as part of a larger package of renewable energy rule recommendations, Administrative Law Judge Ken Kirkpatrick wrote that the 2-megawatt cap is “somewhat arbitrary” and that a larger limit is warranted.

He recommends imposing only the cap of 120 percent of average annual use, no matter how large a system that allows. Braaten said that standard would meet Rifle’s needs.

The PUC is scheduled to act on the renewable energy rule revisions later this year.

Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said the utility is not opposing the judge’s recommendation on the cap.

However, he said the concerns that Xcel raised about a larger cap continue to be relevant. Increased renewable energy capacity adds to Xcel’s challenge of providing backup electricity when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

In his recommendation, Kirkpatrick called that concern valid, but said it involves engineering and operational issues, and the cap is primarily an economic one.

Stutz said Xcel is testing batteries and molten salt as means of storing renewable energy, along with a system to use wind to produce hydrogen, which could then serve as a fuel source.

Cost shouldn’t be utility’s only consideration

Grand Valley Power has issued a strongly worded statement opposing the cap and trade legislation working its way through Congress. In this statement, it becomes clear that the overriding mission of Grand Valley Power is to provide least-cost power to its customers without other considerations.

Grand Valley Power purchases all its power from XCEL Energy. XCEL Energy generates power from a variety of sources, with coal plants contributing over 50 percent of this mix. The mean use GVP customer, the one that uses only 750 kilowatt hours of power a month, is secondarily responsible for the combustion of 10 pounds per day of coal and the subsequent discharge of carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere.

There is an excellent analysis of the climate crisis currently on newsstands, issued by National Geographic, called “Energy for Tomorrow.”

Only diehards are continuing to deny that the 6.8 billion human inhabitants of this planet bear some responsibility for climate change. The U.S. coal industry has or will receive half a trillion dollars to start the transition to cleaner electricity, yet some power suppliers are aggressively fighting this transition. Why?

What is Grand Valley Power’s responsibility as a secondary power distributor? Should REAs hold to least-cost mission statements, without factoring in any of the end costs related to their industry? Should power producers be required to utilize carbon sequestration, coal gasification and other processes to generate cleaner electricity or be penalized for their emissions?

Is cap and trade the best possible platform of change? There are many who support a straight carbon tax as far better solution. If you want to write your congressman, that would be my recommended suggestion.

I am a customer of Grand Valley Power, as a residence and as a business. I adamantly oppose Grand Valley Power’s position on this issue.

Fred Pittenger, CEO
Simplicity Solar
Grand Junction