Solar program to pay Oregonians premium rates for power they generate

[depakid]

Panels soak in the sun atop the Southeast Portland home of Mary Lane Stevens and Tom Hard. Oregonians will soon be able to choose whether to claim state tax credits for solar systems or to sign up for payments from utilities for energy produced.
-----------

Oregonians who install solar panels will soon be eligible to receive checks from utility companies at premium rates for the power they generate.

A pilot program unveiled Friday -- the first of its kind in the nation -- is designed to guarantee homeowners and businesses a long-term stream of income to cover their costs. Ratepayers of participating utilities will fund the program through higher monthly bills; that spooks utility-customer advocates who say expanding the program could push rates to unaffordable levels.

Overseen by the Oregon Public Utility Commission, the system will increase electricity rates by an undetermined amount for customers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power -- and Oregon customers of Idaho Power. The five-year program is limited to a maximum 25 megawatts of production, roughly enough energy to serve 2,500 homes. It draws from approaches in Europe, where demand for solar systems soared as a result.

"For the first time, we won't be trying to fund renewable energy from state tax credits, which make renewables compete for the same dollars that fund schools and public safety," said Judith Barnes, a co-founder of Oregonians for Renewable Energy Policy. The organization helped shape a bill in the Legislature last year adopting the approach.

Advocates say the system will help Oregon lead the nation in democratizing solar energy, allowing homeowners to cover the costs of bank loans they might need to pay for residential systems. It will also reward energy production instead of subsidizing installation.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/05/solar_program_to_pay_oregonian.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Excellent. State Utility Commissiones everywhere should require this allowance.

It's not the standard way grid tied net metering is done.

Recommended.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. I have grid tie in CA. The rate they will pay is still TBD, but it will not be high

I tend to agree. The utility should pay what their average generation cost would be, not a premium. Otherwise rate payers are subsidizing those with the capital to afford larger solar systems.

Also in CA the utilities are allowed to take credit for residential solar systems as part of their green power mandates. Costs us nothing, but is still funny bookkeeping.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Are you SCE or PGE, or other?

I'm up North, and I'm curious because I've heard that they're going to start paying back for surplus generation (they don't now).

I wonder if it's statewide mandated by CPUC, or just a decision by individual utilities.

PS: Good for you, solar power!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. CPUC Mandate

As I understand it, in trade for being able to count our systems towards their "green power" quotas, they had to pay for excess power. Rate is still TBD.

While I would love it to be at a premium rate, the right answer is production cost. No reason other users should subsidize those with the captial to install large solar installations. The rebates in CA are already fairly large.

I am also concerned about the tax consequences. If they pay you, a 1099 will follow. State could exempt that, but not with the current deficits. The Feds will treat it as ordinary income. All that said, if the rates work, I could see installing additional panels on my property, subject to the limits imposed by the wiring.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Despite the details, I think this is great news.

Interesting how they rationalize it, they do it to meet the green portfolio standard (and not so much because it's the right fucking thing to do).

Either way, it's a win for the environment and the fair thing to do for those who install them.

Proceeds from over-generation should be fully tax-free, I guess that's the next goal.

:toast:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. It will be interesting to see if the CA rates with the other incentives will be enough

to justify additional private investments, such as another 10KW on my property, which is what I am looking at.

[kristopher]

13. Why should they pay average rates?

Solar is a peaking resource at this point and as such the rates should reflect the *significantly* higher costs of peaking power.

Additionally there is very good reason for all ratepayers to help pay for this as it facilitates overall lower rates and reductions in the environmental externalities for for all consumers in the future. To put it a different way, why should everyone absorb the costs of the externalities of fossil fuels and nuclear in order to make those industries profitable?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Its called being progressive

The vast majority of people with solar installations with surplus power tend to have $$$, since it is a significant capital investment. Their economics in CA until now were based on reduced power bill. Being paid for for any extra generated is a windfall. While it is more profitable for me personally if its bought at a premium rate, its seems more fair that externally generated power should be purchased at the notional going rates. It also prevents what is going on in Trona.

[kristopher]

15. Bullshit.

You totally ignored the points posted; they explain why your appeal to some sort of a social justice premise is completely without merit. On the basis of your claim the only structural changes possible in a society would be those that provide immediate economic benefit to the poor. To limit our structural engineering choices on that basis is the position of either an idiot or someone with an ulterior agenda - and you clearly are not an idiot.

Nuclear power sucks and is historically far, far, far more heavily subsidized than wind or solar.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Speaking of unaddressed, what about Trona?

There are hard core nuclear supporters here, I am not one of them.

Solar is so heavily subsidized right now that it scarcely needs more. In CA the state subsidy is dropping as more MW come on line.

Social justice matters here on DU and to most of us

[kristopher]

17. Of course social justice matters, but

you aren't talking actual social justice, you are doing nothing more than parroting the free-marketer's appeal to faux economic populism. Progressive values consider things like ending the corporate stranglehold on energy, the environmental effects of fossil fuels, and the political/social consequences of fossil fuel addiction to be high value goals.

Goals that you seem oblivious to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. But.....

Nothing I have said goes against what you have said...
- It supports compensation for added value without hurting existing rate payers (a balancing act to be sure)
- It supports the continued growth of solar energy
- Contributes to the weaning of all of us off of oil

Its not near as martial or absolutist as your views, but if you are really working in public policy you understand gradualism is the only viable approach in the long run in the US. Abrupt changes are well known to be counter productive. Responsible leadership in the US culture means making the hard decisions and then through a process of both carrots and sticks move the rest the nation.

Do still seem to have any idea what the issue is/was in Trona

[kristopher]

19. Yes it does.

You insisted that blending the costs of incentivizing solar energy into the ratepayer base was unacceptable because it was higher than the "average generating costs". Your logic for that was specifically that "rate payers are subsidizing those with the capital to afford larger solar systems".

You assign no value to the larger goals and long term economic planning involved in the decision process. Therefore it is extremely obvious that your argument is nothing more than a "free market" appeal to economic populism; we hear the same shit from teabagger incessantly "someone with more money than you will benefit from a government program paid for with YOUR taxes so let's reject the program".

"Gradualism" has nothing to do with whether subsidies are justified to move us away from fossil fuels nor with whether the distribution of load for the subsidies is "fair" or not. All you are doing is diverting from the unsupportable argument you originally made.

[sandnsea]

2. This is the only jobs program we need

Solar on every roof top. We should have put the entire $700 billion stimulus into it.

[NNadir]

3. $700 billion dumped into this toxicology nightmare wouldn't do a damn thing.

Fifty years of obliviousness about solar energy hasn't done crap either.

Solar PV energy gets by with having its horrible environmental profile obscured by the fact that it is a grotesque failure: After all the money thrown down the "solar will save us" rabbit hole for the last 50 years, it produces trivial energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

If it ever got to 1% of US energy - which it won't - people will be amazed at the destruction it would cause, because essentially, its environmental profile is precisely the same as the intractable problem of electronic waste and because its mass/energy ratio is extremely high.

It's another bit of wishful thinking on the part of people who don't understand the first thing about science.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Personally, I think the drama about environmental harm from PV module production is BS.

Not a single device, not a single technology, for generating electricity is without some environmental impact.

Solar PV, when manufactured under the current US environmental standards (not offshore) has minimal impacts.

Very few, and fewer and fewer over time, buy into the myth that solar PV is bad for the environment.

Small scale, local (on your rooftop) generation, especially at peak demand hours, is such a huge no-brainer that I don't even know how to respond to people who poo-poo it.

It takes the burden off the grid, it's passive, it's long lasting, it's green, there isn't a material (like uranium or corn) that needs to be collected and fed into it.

Of course it's not the end-all, it's just a great contributor to the mix.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

12. As opposed to piles of nuclear waste

Your chart only shows how much energy we use overall, which shows the potential that wind and solar have. A 300+ unit wind farm in eastern Oregon is expected to produce as much power as a nuclear plant. We're testing wave energy off the coast. You're wrong that nuclear is the only answer. It's become a religion to you, not science.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. So, rate payers who can't afford solar panels...

...are giving their money to those who can. Utopia, here we come!

Unless you're poor, in which case you can fuck off.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Pretty much...