\r\n\r\n\r\n
<\/a>\r\nThe company is proposing an average tariff of about $22 per month\r\nfor new home solar systems that aren’t a part of\r\n\r\nGeorgia Power-sponsored solar initiatives<\/a>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nCompany officials argue the tariff is necessary because most solar\r\nusers still require the power grid as a back-up when the sun isn’t\r\nshining. As solar use spreads, the company stands to collect less\r\nrevenue from those customers. What doesn’t change is the cost to\r\nmaintain the grid. Georgia Power says non-solar customers shouldn’t\r\nhave to bear all the costs.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n“We don’t want to contribute to the problem of shifting costs\r\nso before we do that we very much prefer to get these tariffs right\r\nso all customers benefit,” said Roberts.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nPSC Chairman Chuck Eaton wondered if the tariff is about making up\r\nfor lost revenue, why not consider new fees for any number of energy\r\nefficiency measures.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n“What makes solar unique?” asked Eaton.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nRoberts responded: “If a customer goes out and puts in a lot\r\nof insulation in their home or buys a more efficient heat pump or\r\nother things, their load every hour of the day is now less. But with\r\na distributed generator out there, especially a solar one, what’s\r\nhappening is sometimes Georgia Power is supplying the customers’\r\nload and sometimes that generator is supplying that load, but the\r\nload hasn’t changed, the underlying load hasn’t changed.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\nThat is of course nonsense.\r\nWhen rooftop solar is generating, it’s first used directly by\r\nthe building it’s sitting on, without going through the utility’s\r\ngrid at all.\r\nThis is why utilities like to pay what they call the “avoided cost”\r\nfor power generated by rooftop solar: it’s the cost the utility\r\ndoes not pay to generate the same amount of power.\r\nWhat utilities really hate about rooftop solar is it generates\r\nthe most at peak load in the afternoon when the utilities charge\r\nthe most, so rooftop solar cuts into utility profit,\r\nas the utility think tank\r\n\r\nEdison Electric Institute warned them earlier this year<\/a>.\r\nGA PSC knows this<\/a>.\r\n
\r\n\r\nSolar advocates like the Sierra Club’s Seth Gunning had a more\r\npointed take.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n
<\/a>\r\n“We think Georgia Power’s attempt to pass basically a solar\r\ntax for folks who are putting solar on their homes and using free\r\nsunshine for electricity is a targeted attack on clean\r\nenergy.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nA Georgia Power spokesman rejected that charge and said the company\r\nis simply trying to protect the interests of all ratepayers, not\r\njust solar users.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\nYeah, sure, Georgia Power; a few months ago you claimed solar power\r\nwould raise customer rates for everybody else until that was disproved and\r\nGA PSC required more solar power<\/a>.\r\nNow you’re making another ridiculous claim that’s just not true.\r\nWhile asking GA PSC to raise rates on everybody:\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe state Public Service Commission held its second day of hearings\r\non a Georgia Power request to charge residential ratepayers about $8\r\nmore per month.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\nGeorgia Power is just copying Dominion Power,\r\nwhich got the\r\n\r\nVirginia State Corporation Commission (SCC)<\/a>\r\nto approve a\r\n\r\n“standby charge”<\/a> for customers\r\nwho generate 10 to 20 kilowatts of solar power.\r\n
\r\n\r\n
<\/a>\r\nTodd Allen Wilson wrote for Daily Press 2 December 2011,\r\n\r\nRegulators approve Dominion standby charge\r\nsolar advocates worry:\r\nPower company says only one customer will be affected as of now<\/a>,\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe SCC agreed with Dominion, saying in its final order last\r\nWednesday, “the evidence in this record indicates that any avoided\r\ncost benefits provided by customer-generators, at least in terms of\r\nthe transmission and distribution grid, are insufficient to pay for\r\ntheir proportionate share of the grid.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n
Discouraging industry<\/H4>\r\n\r\n
\r\nCorsello said Dominion has no intention of trying to get the standby\r\ncharge to residential customers with smaller solar energy systems,\r\nwhich would require a change in state law, but critics say this move\r\nby the power company is “the camel’s nose under the tent.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n
<\/a>\r\nThe assistant director of the Sierra Club Virginia chapter, J.R.\r\nTolbert, said in a statement the commission’s decision allows\r\nDominion to continue its “its monopolistic stranglehold on\r\nVirginia’s electricity generation.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n“Generating electricity from renewable sources, in this case solar\r\npanels installed on rooftops, is to be encouraged, not punished,” he\r\nsaid. “Once again, Dominion is allowed to be the bully for its\r\nbottom line.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\nDominion Power’s\r\n\r\nanswer to that<\/a>:\r\n
\r\n
- \r\nWouldn’t the Standby Charge result in discouraging installation of\r\nlarge solar-powered systems using net metering?\r\n<\/DT>\r\n
- \r\nVirginia law specifically requires homeowners with large alternative\r\nsystems to pay their fair share of Dominion’s infrastructure costs\r\nto have the wires and equipment available to them when their\r\nalternative system isn’t available. In this case, customers with\r\nlarge alternative systems would still have lower monthly electric\r\nbills than those without them.\r\n<\/DD>\r\n<\/DL>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\nTranslation: sure, it will discourage solar, and we got it made into law!\r\n
\r\nMeanwhile,\r\n\r\nAustin Energy did a real study<\/a>\r\nof distributed solar generation benefits\r\nand discovered that:\r\n
\r\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/rf\/image_296w\/2010-2019\/WashingtonPost\/2011\/10\/06\/Production\/RealEstate\/Images\/phsolar_004.jpg?uuid=ShFFjvBTEeCslyCZCra_BQ\")
<\/a>\r\nThese included not only the actual electricity produced but also the\r\nelimination of line losses as well as costs the utility could avoid\r\nby not building, or even delaying, construction on more generation.\r\n“If you put off a billion-dollar decision for one year, that’s\r\nat five percent interest,” said [Karl] Rabago. “It’s a\r\nbig savings in cash each year.”\r\n<\/p>\r\n