[Ok-sus] New clean energy tariff

Eric Pollard ewpollard at gmail.com
Thu May 1 14:34:22 UTC 2014


How Solar Is Cutting Grid Costs

John Farrell  <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/u/john-farrell-ilsr>

With solar power, “we can avoid that $100 million investment in
transmission lines, distribution lines, in capital infrastructure…”

That was Vice President of Environmental Affairs Michael Deering of the
Long Island Power Authority in a remarkable podcast interview, explaining
how local solar energy can help offset expensive grid upgrades for bringing
in remote power generation, as much as $100 million worth.

Listen in to the podcast (recorded via Skype on 11/25/13) for the full
story, or read the summary below for more on why one of the country's
biggest municipal utilities is looking to solar to meet their growing
energy demand.

*Podcast (Local Energy Rules): Play in new window
| Download
| Embed

*Energy to Power the Economy*

A key focus for the Long Island utility was the economic and environmental
benefits of solar, not just the power generation. Solar power did have
significant grid benefits and it reduced costly pollution, but Deering
emphasized how solar built on Long Island means jobs and economic
development on Long Island.

*Energy for Peak Needs*

The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) isn’t new to customer-owned solar.
They launched their first solar rebate program in 2001, and now have solar
on over 7,300 homes and businesses on Long Island.  They’ve added another
50 megawatts (MW) with a few utility-scale projects, and then launched a
feed-in tariff program encouraging commercial-scale solar (50 to 500
kilowatts) in 2012.  In total, the utility will have 170 MW of solar
installed by the end of 2014, sufficient to meet about 3% of its peak

*Local Energy with High Value*

LIPA isn’t a typical municipal utility.  It’s literally at the “end of the
line” of the power grid and its limited capacity to import power puts a
premium on locally generated energy.  The new iteration of the utility's
feed-in tariff program, launched in 2013, asks for 40 percent of the power
to be developed on the south fork of Long Island (Montauk).  If it works as
planned, the utility will pay an additional 7¢ per kilowatt-hour for energy
from those solar projects, using that prime-time energy to defer big
investments in new transmission power lines and power plants.

*What’s Next for Long Island power?*

LIPA has plans to procure more large-scale renewable energy through a
280-MW request for proposal in 2014 as well as a third, 20-MW iteration of
its popular feed-in tariff program — this time focused on
non-solar renewable energy technologies.

*You can learn more about feed-in tariff programs from ILSR's 2012 report
<http://www.ilsr.org/u-s-clean-programs-now-learned/> or about the way
utilities are valuing solar power from ILSR's recently released report
on Minnesota's Value of Solar policy
<http://www.ilsr.org/minnesotas-value-of-solar/> or blogseries on
Minnesota’s value of solar law

*Photo credit: CoCreatr <http://bit.ly/1hJx6cJ>*

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Joel Olson <joel.olson at att.net> wrote:

> For those who may be a little fuzzy on net metering, here is
> the way it works, afaik.
> Net metering laws require the large utility companies to allow a
> homeowner to connect to the grid, subject to some technical
> standards, such as a cut-off switch and that clean 60 cycle AC
> be generated. These are called grid-tie systems.
> The connection to the grid is within the home wiring, "below"
> the meter. When the solar array (or wind turbine) is generating
> electricity, that power gets used instead of external power. So
> the homeowner's 'payment' for that power will come in the form
> of a lower utility bill. Lowered by the charge they would have
> incurred had they needed that amount of electricity. Note that
> there is no transmission or use of the utility lines here; the
> utility thus avoids the transmission losses they'd have absorbed,
> had that power been drawn by the homeowner.
> The more real situation expands on this by considering the rate
> at which the homeowner generates electricity - peaking in the
> afternoon for solar, late at night for wind. That rate varies only
> with the weather - wind speed, cloudiness change often - and
> the homeowner has little control of it.
> What the homeowner can control, however is their USE of power.
> They can put off using the electric oven till late at night, and
> manage their usage in other similar ways.
> So now we need to compare these two rates. When the homeowner
> is using less energy than they are generating, the "excess" goes
> through the meter, turning the dials backward, and onto the grid.
> When the home is using more current that it is generating, the
> additional amount needed is drawn through the meter, into the
> house wiring, and the dials record the amount for the next month's
> bill.
> Considering this now over a 24-hour period, if more was used by
> the home than was generated, there will be a net addition to the
> bill. If more was generated, i.e. if there was a "net excess" for that
> day, there will be a reduction to the bill. Only when there is such a
> net excess at the end of the monthly billing cycle, is there "excess
> generation" to be resolved. (I.e. the utility company would owe the
> homeowner money.) OG&E and PSO each handle this situation in
> their own way. PSO simply absorbs the excess generation and does
> not pay the homeowner; the bill starts again on the next month's
> cycle. OG&E, however, carries these over to the next month, and
> if there is still excess generation at the end of the year, they pay
> the homeowner for it, at what they calculate to be their "cost avoided."
> Yes, the potential is there for a homeowner to make a big investment
> and get a check from the utility company every month. But this is
> not really feasible, as the OCC rules on net metering place severe
> limits on the size of an array that the homeowner can install and
> still be able to tie into the grid.
> The interested reader may want to cross-check this account with
> http://www.seia.org/policy/distributed-solar/net-metering
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dalton, Deborah W." <dalton at ou.edu>
> To: <ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] New clean energy tariff
> As I understand it the utilities are more than happy to receive/accept the
> excess power when your solar panels are working hard and your meter is
> running
> backward without compensating you for the power or for your own
> infrastructure
> costs. They just don't want to pay you for your generated power. Is this
> true?
> If so it seems hypocritical...
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™ III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Kelley C Smith <smithkc at riskiii.com>
> Date: 04/30/2014 6:49 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] New clean energy tariff
> Hi Mike,
> I know you, but you don't know me. I worked for OGE for 16 years, and have
> now
> been away a long time. My background is economics and statistics, so
> anything i
> "know" about engineering was something I was told, usually by an OG&E
> engineer.
> :-) I will grant that my information may be outdated, and perhaps a little
> biased. :-)
> Hope everyone takes note of your explanation of devices that "ensure that
> a wind
> or solar system is disconnected from the power grid in less than one
> second in
> the event of a power outage and that they stay off-line until grid power is
> restored for at least 5 minutes." I'm glad to know this. Some engineers I
> remember thought this could be a problem; others dismissed it as a
> non-issue.
> But, the generation planning problem is the much more expensive issue of
> the
> two.
> I'm a little perplexed as to how wind or solar could help much with
> peak-shaving. If a customer installs wind or solar, and doesn't need
> his/her own
> power during hot summer afternoons (allowing for occasional ups and downs)
> then
> the customer has installed extra capacity. This isn't a customer who has
> some
> occasional spare power; this is a mini-utility, a merchant generator.
> I am inclined to think, that from society's point of view, mini-utilities
> --
> widespread distributed generation -- might be a really good thing. It
> seems to
> me it would cut down on line losses, and that alone might be reason enough
> to
> pursue it.
> It's hard for me to think of back-up generating capacity costs as
> "theoretical."
> Either the generator is there when you need it, or it isn't. And it has to
> continue to exist and be ready to run all those hours, weeks, months you
> don't
> need it. The transmission system has to be there -- high lines,
> substations….
> and has to be maintained. There could be distributed back-up on a smaller
> scale
> than an OG&E, PSO, PG&E, Conn Ed….. for sure. But if we want the
> convenience we
> now have, somebody has to lay out some dollars for generating equipment of
> some
> kind, and somebody has to maintain the transmission and distribution
> system.
> This could be publicly owned. It could be a coop…..
> It just seems to me that there is an awkward gray area where we want our
> own
> generation (and the cleaner air that we desperately need), but also to be
> able
> to rely on a backup source -- an energy provider of last resort. It's not
> much
> of a problem for a few isolated customers here and there to install wind,
> solar,
> whatever and "drop in" occasionally for emergency backup. But, they can
> count on
> their neighbors continuing to patronize the franchised investor-owned
> utility
> (IOU).
> I'm not saying this is a good bill, and I am still not sure I have the
> details.
> I would argue that to get to a point where carbon emissions are acceptable
> will
> bring up some difficult legal issues…..but I think this post is too long
> already.
> I'm really glad there has been this discussion.
> Kelley
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:23 AM, "Mike Bergey"
> <mbergey at bergey.com<mailto:mbergey at bergey.com>> wrote:
> Kelly,
> Let me correct a few things you got wrong in your response to Vicki.
>  Also, I
> see a lot of confusion on listservs about net metering so allow me to
> clarify a
> few things.  I have 35 years’ experience in this arena and was directly
> involved
> with the establishment of net metering regulations at the Corporation
> Commission
> in 1986.
> First, there are no added costs to a utility to enable net metering.  Your
> standard dynamometer type energy meter (the ones with the spinning disc)
> works
> perfectly well, unless it has an optional ratcheting mechanism, whether
> power is
> flowing into or out of the home.  The same is true for electronic and smart
> meters, though “ratcheting” (not registering reverse flow) can be
> implemented in
> software.
> Second, there are no “extra controls” that a utility has to install to
> provide
> protection for linemen responding to a power outage.  Doubly-redundant
> automatic
> safety disconnects required under IEEE standards for the interface
> electronics
> ensure that a wind or solar system is disconnected from the power grid in
> less
> than one second in the event of a power outage and that they stay off-line
> until
> grid power is restored for at least 5 minutes.  FYI, these safety standards
> exceed any requirements that utilities place on the use of back-up
> generators
> for homes.
> Excess wind or solar production naturally flows into the utility power
> lines and
> is sold by the utility to a neighboring home at the retail rate.  Federal
> law
> requires all utilities to pay for excess generation at a rate at least
> reflecting their “avoided costs”.  Net metering (run the meter backwards)
> is a
> policy that gives the customer full retail value for excess production (as
> if
> they had consumed it in their home) and saves the utility the
> not-insignificant
> costs of administering different buying and selling rates.  Before
> Oklahoma’s
> net metering regulation was adopted in 1986 we had customers with 1 kW wind
> turbines that were receiving monthly checks from OG&E for as little as 6
> cents.
> We estimated it cost OG&E ~$25 to read the second meter and process those
> manual
> checks.
> Excess production typically ranges from 0 – 40% of annual wind or solar
> production, so net metering policies really only affect the valuation of a
> small
> percentage of the energy produced.
> There are theoretical costs for utilities to provide back-up capacity and
> maintain the transmission and distribution infrastructure to deliver
> back-up
> energy.  There are also theoretical benefits to utilities for voltage
> support,
> VAR injection (power factor improvement), peak shaving (summer for solar
> and
> winter for wind), and environmental attributes from distributed renewable
> energy
> generation.  SB 1456 is a solution in search of a problem and one can only
> hope
> that the accounting to be done by the utilities will include both the
> costs and
> the benefits.  Done right we might the surcharge might turn out to be
> negative
> (i.e., a credit).
> Mike Bergey
> President & CEO
> Bergey Windpower Co.
> From: Ok-sus
> [mailto:ok-sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:
> sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org>]
> On Behalf Of Kelley C Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:32 PM
> To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:
> ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] New clean energy tariff
> Vicki,
> Your coop is different from OG&E or PSO, yes. I am thinking Ozark is a
> distribution coop…. it does not own any generating units. It probably buys
> energy from a G&T coop, or somewhere. OG&E and PSO both own generation,
> transmission, and distribution facilities. Is that right? And, having to
> sell
> power on an unpredictable basis is different when there are  a small
> number of
> people "dropping in" for emergency power than when a significant portion of
> customers are doing that. THis is an issue that a distribution coop need
> not
> worry about. it's the generator's problem!
> The type of generation unit built is determined by the "shape" of the
> load. That
> is, if all your customers are oil refineries which have a more or less
> constant
> power demand 24/7, you build a unit that can run flat out all year long….
> well,
> no unit can do that, but you would build a "base load" generation station,
> high
> capital costs, low variable costs. If you need additional generation  for
> hot
> summer afternoons when people turn on air conditioning, then you build a
> "peaker" unit… usually something with a lower capital cost, and these
> invariably
> have higher variable (fuel) costs.  Base load stations simply cannot be
> run the
> way peaker units are. THe startup and shutdown is much more complex…..I
> could go
> on, but maybe an engineer will chime in here.
> Also, on the distribution or power delivery side, there are costs
> associated
> with allowing people to sell power back to the utility. For example, say
> there
> is a bad storm that knocks some lines down. If the utility is the only
> party
> sending any power along the system, they know where to flip switches to
> make it
> safe for line crews to restore power. If various houses are selling power
> back,
> there are extra controls that have to be installed so that this power can
> be
> shut down in the case of repairs.
> Yes, as you point out, there could be a flat rate for all customers to pay
> for
> any costs associated with net metering One could argue that everyone would
> benefit from cleaner air from wind or solar power, and thus all should pay
> for
> net metering equipment (net metering is the term for charging a customer
> for
> their energy net of what they "trade" back to the utility) as just another
> little chunk of the customer charge. That would be one way to go about it.
> Perhaps I've said more than enough, as I am not sure I have the complete
> info on
> the bill anyway. I am not necessarily defending any particular viewpoint,
> but
> electricity is a very complicated thing to buy and sell. I think solar and
> wind
> power are very interesting, and a lot depends on energy storage technology.
> Perhaps some affordable type of battery will come along, and the need to
> maintain an expensive distribution system will not be such a big deal.
> I am afraid any bill that was hurried through the legislature sounds
> suspicious.
> Kelley
> On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:11 AM, "Vicke Adams"
> <vicke at vickeadams.com<mailto:vicke at vickeadams.com>> wrote:
> I don't know how OG&E or PSO operate since I have Ozark Electric which is a
> cooperative. Ozark does not pay for electricity put back on the grid. They
> also
> charge a minimum monthly amount of $25 regardless of how much electricity
> that
> you use. That is how they pay for infrastructure for minimal users. There
> are
> many summer cabins out here where I'm at. Those people pay $25 per month,
> every
> month, even on months they don't come out to their cabin. So, utility
> companies
> have already figured out how to provide for their infrastructure.
> But let's look at an analogy to your argument. Toll roads are built and
> maintained by the people that pay to use them. There aren't different
> charges
> based on how much you use the road. They don't charge me if I opt to use
> the
> alternate roads for a few months. Would you give the Turnpikes the right to
> charge those who don't use it since they have to build and maintain it on
> an
> unpredictable basis?
> I read somewhere that Governor Fallin's executive order implementing this
> law
> basically guts it. I've read the executive order, twice, and I have to
> admit
> that I don't understand what it says. If it guts the law, I'm not sure how.
> Vicke
> From: Ok-sus
> [mailto:ok-sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:
> sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org>]
> On Behalf Of Kelley C Smith
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:27 PM
> To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:
> ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] New clean energy tariff
> I'm not sure I understand the bill, and I don't want to be an apologist
> for the
> fossil fuel industry… but, I think I should say something or at least ask a
> question…
> When I looked, I thought the bill was imposing a sort of tax on those who
> had
> solar panels, etc. and who wanted to connect to the grid to sell power and
> to,
> when necessary, buy power. That is, if there is cloud cover for a few
> days, and
> a family's battery back-up is running low, they would want OG&E or PSO or
> someone to supply them some power for a while. Also, some people want to
> sell
> surplus power.
> Asking a utility to be your back-up of last resort is asking quite a lot.
> How do
> they plan for this? Why should they build, and maintain generation,
> transmission, and distribution facilities to sell power on such an
> unpredictable
> basis? That's the question society must answer.
> Maybe I misunderstood, and I am not saying that OGE or PSO should get
> whatever
> they want (if indeed that's what this bill does), but we have to think
> about
> what it means to change from fossil fuel generation and how we deal with
> days
> when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
> Perhaps a more equitable, and maybe more economical solution would be very
> small-scale portable gasoline or diesel generators. Or, perhaps we should
> look
> into every possible milliwatt of energy we can save and just not ask for
> back-up
> from the grid. It is a difficult question.
> Kelley
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 5:52 PM, Stephanie Jeffords
> <buzzardroostranch at gmail.com<mailto:buzzardroostranch at gmail.com>> wrote:
> This bill is a horrible infringement on our freedom and inalienable rights.
> It might be advantageous to create a petition through
> change.org<http://change.org/> to have this bill repealed.
> The bill obviously creates a double standard and feeds the oil and gas
> monopoly.
> If our legislators can pass this bill to assess fees on our own
> solar and wind power, what else will they try to tax or make a law
> against, my
> garden vegetables so that Monsanto can have complete control of all crops?
> Through despot bills and over taxation our legislators are destroying our
> small
> farms and ranches, the backbone of this country.
> We have legislators that are allowing the oil and gas industry to have
> absolute
> power or control of our state government. This is despotism and is
> addressed in
> the preamble to our
> Declaration of Independence, which also states that:
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> that
> they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that
> among
> these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
> No where does it say that all corporations are created equal with
> inalienable
> rights.
> We can not have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, when our
> legislators
> engage in discriminatory, self-serving and over taxation to suppress new
> technology and innovations that would take us off our forced dependency on
> oil
> and gas.
> I will sign your petition!!
> Stephanie
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Vicke Adams
> <vicke at vickeadams.com<mailto:vicke at vickeadams.com>> wrote:
> Is anyone else upset about the new fees that are now going to be assessed
> onOklahomans that have solar or wind energy? This legislature is not in
> touch
> with reality. How and why are they penalizing me for trying to be more
> sustainable, not to mention to have a source of energy when the grid is
> down? I
> am located in a very rural area. I spent over $6000 to have a small solar
> power
> system that provides electricity to a portion of my cabin, It allows me to
> keep
> functioning when the grid is down. Just this week the grid was down in my
> area
> for almost four hours. No storms, no explanations.But, now that same
> utility
> company will have the right to charge me a monthly fee because I have solar
> panels on my roof!
> I called my state representative and senator as well as others to ask them
> not
> to vote for this bill. I hope others were doing the same. What I fear is
> that
> this terrible bill was passed through both houses and signed by the
> governor
> today in such a slick, quiet way that most people probably don't even know
> it
> has happened. I keep waiting for the outrage but so far, I'm not seeing or
> hearing any coverage.
> What's up with this? I'm about ready to drive to the capitol and go office
> to
> office registering my displeasure with the entire place. Although, I fear
> that I
> would end up in jail and then who would be here to milk the goats that
> night?
> Vicke - One really unhappy Oklahoman
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> >
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> >
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> >
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org<mailto:Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> >
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ok-sus mailing list
> > Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus

Eric W. Pollard
C: (918) 290-9905
Twitter <https://twitter.com/#%21/ewpollard>
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/ewpollard>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20140501/52691f1c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ok-sus mailing list