JEA is trying to Stop Rooftop Solar Power
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Climate-change-summit-2015/i-D8CWGn5/0/L/solarheader-L.jpg)
Not even a month ago Nevada’s public power company, NV energy, dropped its net metering credit for solar generated electricity in the state. The net metering credit is how homes with solar panels get paid back for the excess electricity they produce. Soon after NV Energy changed its net metering credit the two largest solar installation companies, SolarCity and SunRun evacuated from the state. They shuttered operations, closing their offices, and laying off 6,000 employees who devoted their careers to the solar industry in its infancy. JEA is learning from the kill operation in Nevada.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-mar-jea-is-trying-to-stop-rooftop-solar-power
This is really sad. I would agree that this plan is more about them not having competition in the future than it is about making money from current solar users. I don't understand why a public utility feels the need to behave this way. The Nevada situation is a perfect example. NV Energy chose to kill 6,000 jobs just so they could ensure greater profits. I wish our local politicians would stand up to JEA.
Does anyone know how the proposed solar amendments would impact decisions like this?
In this case it is really up to the voters to decide.
Hawaii Power tried and failed to do the same thing, but voters won the day.
Clearly the general power lobby saw this coming with the reduced prices for solar panels (and more coming) and they have ramped up the political pressure in return.
The economics of power generation right now favor fossil fuel sources. Centralized generation with a distribution grid is the cheapest way to make it available to everyone.
The grid was never designed for distributed energy production. That is why the regional grid operators have few interconnect points.
Wait until Tesla's in home batteries and their competitors come out. This is just the beginning of seeing how powerful the power lobby really is.
Inbother words, you havent seen anything yet.
The power lobbies are huge. Rather than working efficiently, they continue to maximize profits, and stifle any sort of change. They can always bill the customer for their failure. Especially for a 'city' utility, not a for profit, like Duke, FPL, etc., Solar should be encouraged. It's just like when they want you to conserve, but due to loss of revenue, jack your rates.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric recently killed solar power in Oklahoma as well by charging solar users/producers fees they don't charge anyone else, which essentially erased the financial benefit of homeowners producing their own electricity.
http://m.newsok.com/article/5441429
Quote from: mbwright on March 10, 2016, 09:13:54 AM
The power lobbies are huge. Rather than working efficiently, they continue to maximize profits, and stifle any sort of change. They can always bill the customer for their failure. Especially for a 'city' utility, not a for profit, like Duke, FPL, etc., Solar should be encouraged. It's just like when they want you to conserve, but due to loss of revenue, jack your rates.
I wish it was something this simple.
Since utilities are regulated, there is a high level of relationship between what they are allowed to pass to the customer and what they cant.
They used to bury their fuel costs in the general rate, but due to nuclear and environmental costs, they have decided to break more of those costs out.
Ratepayers have been demanding more transparency in the rate structure becuase they wanted to see if and where those poor decisions were showing up in the rate structure.
This came to a head when several nuclear projects were either cancelled or deferred in the late 70's. The utilities attempted to recover their costs of these cancelled projects.
Ratepayers objected to paying for poor planning by the utility CEO's.
One utility decided it was better to finish a long delayed plant even though they didnt need it right away so they could get it added to the rate base. It ran at 10% for several years until another plant reached retirement.
Building power plants is hugely expensive and requires a defined cash flow to support those 30 year bonds. That means they have to forecast ratepayer demand.
If ratepayers start leaving or reducing their use of the grid, then the utilities will only have 2 choices, raise rates to compensate or defer investment. Deferring investment in maintenance or capital inprovements causes more outages or longer times to recover after a natural event.
Maybe it's time to extend the protections of the Solar Rights Act, though if JEA is receiving any federal money they should not be able to make restrictive policies.
http://energy.gov/savings/solar-rights-act (http://energy.gov/savings/solar-rights-act)
Quote from: spuwho on March 10, 2016, 12:22:19 PM
Quote from: mbwright on March 10, 2016, 09:13:54 AM
The power lobbies are huge. Rather than working efficiently, they continue to maximize profits, and stifle any sort of change. They can always bill the customer for their failure. Especially for a 'city' utility, not a for profit, like Duke, FPL, etc., Solar should be encouraged. It's just like when they want you to conserve, but due to loss of revenue, jack your rates.
If ratepayers start leaving or reducing their use of the grid, then the utilities will only have 2 choices, raise rates to compensate or defer investment. Deferring investment in maintenance or capital inprovements causes more outages or longer times to recover after a natural event.
Just two choices? I think the have a few more options than that.
^Lol, that's not what the article says. Not even Folio makes that leap.
Reading the Folio link, this is so sad and pathetic. You have to be a long time crack smoker to buy into what JEA is saying. The solar user spends a mountain of money to get started, and JEA shares none of that expense.
They then recieve a small dividend over several years to get their money back, all the while actually using the grid less. WOW.
"JEA is also planning to offer customers solar power through a new program, SolarSmart. JEA will buy solar from large solar gardens or farms and sell it to customers in the same way it sells electric. Customers will be able to choose what percentage of their power comes from solar, up to 100 percent. Boyce described it as an option for an apartment dweller who can't install their own solar system. The utility plans to charge a higher rate for electricity produced with solar energy."
I see this program really taking off. I'm sure lots of folks will want to pay more for their power, just because it came from a solar source.
I'm surprised they are not banning any use of natural gas by electric customers, since that too takes away from their profit.
Koch is dangerous to America, unless you are rich and don't care about anything other than profit.
"Previously JEA only paid solar producers equal to the cost of purchasing a kilowatt-hour at $0.104, but is now proposing to drop the payment to solar producers from $0.104 to $0.075 per kilowatt-hour. This means if you were producing solar power, for every kilowatt of energy you produced, JEA would make a $0.029, or 27.88% profit off of the energy you produce, and likely increase the time needed to return your investment on your new solar panels by 6 years from 18.69 years to 24.76 years."
This calculation assumes there is no additional cost to the utility to accept and redistribute this power to the grid, which I think is a flawed assumption. Until very recently, power grids were basically designed around a small number of large scale energy generation points and transmission and distribution systems sprawling outward. Solar is great and will get even better but to ignore cost to make changes to the grid to accommodate residential solar isn't arguing fairly. Should non-solar households subsidize these changes along with solar households? That is fair policy question. We subsidize lots of things. So far the rate system has spread those costs to everyone but the new policy would not.
If the Koch bros scare you, check out this report from the MIT Energy Initiative on the future of solar: http://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar (http://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar). The executive summary has a nice summary of this concept (and chapter 7 goes into much more detail):
"Introducing distributed PV has two effects on distribution system costs. In general, line losses initially decrease as the penetration of distributed PV increases. However, when distributed PV grows to account for a significant share of overall generation, its net effect is to increase distribution costs (and thus local rates). This is because new investments are required to maintain power quality when power also flows from customers back to the network, which current networks were not designed to handle. Electricity storage is a currently expensive alternative to network reinforcements or upgrades to handle increased distributed PV power flows.
In an efficient and equitable distribution system, each customer would pay a share of distribution network costs that reflected his or her responsibility for causing those costs. Instead, most U.S. utilities bundle distribution network costs, electricity costs, and other costs and then charge a uniform per-kWh rate that just covers all these costs. When this rate structure is combined with net metering, which compensates residential PV generators at the retail rate for the electricity they generate, the result is a subsidy to residential and other distributed solar generators that is paid by other customers on the network. This cost shifting has already produced political conflicts in some cities and states — conflicts that can be expected to intensify as residential solar penetration increases."
in addition to NIMBY's counter argument the article displays a chart which shows peak Solar output at 11:00 (AM) then dropping and being near its minimum levels 3 - 5 PM then dropping to 0. On a typical hot summer JEA's peak demand will be between 3 - 5 PM right as solar is dropping. Often the load lingers through 8 - 9 PM with our humid evenings again with no solar to balance. In short JEA is getting solar at non peak times and will be backing down or holding back generation. This generation could be coal (est $.018 - $.027 kw/h) or gas (nat gas is currently very inexpensive) generation (est $.018 - $.034 kw/h).
Quote from: stephendare on March 10, 2016, 08:06:36 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 10, 2016, 04:54:50 PM
^Lol, that's not what the article says. Not even Folio makes that leap.
QuoteIf there's a corporate conspiracy against rooftop solar, it makes sense to some that the Koch brothers' fingerprints are all over it. JEA's rationale for the reduction in what's called net metering, as presented in February to its board of directors, could have been lifted from model legislation created by a Koch brothers-funded think tank, Americans for Prosperity, which is being pushed in states across the U.S. (See ALEC legislation at bit.ly/1L7mJoJ.)
Poster boys for the New American Oligarchy, Charles and David Koch, multi-gillionaires worth at least $80 billion, are ultra-conservative siblings who've budgeted nearly a billion dollars — $899 million — to spend on the 2016 presidential race. The Kochs are also working to change laws in states around the nation to make everything more corporate and profit-friendly, to limit oversight and privatize, privatize, privatize. Through another think tank the Kochs heavily support, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), legislators all over America receive model legislation and talking points on a wide array of topics, including dismantling environmental protection laws, privatizing public schools, reducing individual and corporation taxes, weakening labor unions, and, yes, making solar power less affordable and less viable.
Wilking believes the movement against solar is about keeping power within the control of utilities.
"JEA [is] being extremely proactive limiting rooftop solar by putting in regressive policies. This is stepping on rooftop solar very hard and very early," he said.
JEA's staff didn't notify Antheil or others in the solar power industry about the presentation they were making to the board on reducing the metering rate until the 11th hour. But Antheil said they did notify the Consumer Energy Alliance, a nonprofit vigorously supported by the Kochs that's described as a front group for the energy industry.
The JEA board is made up of mostly new appointees named by Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry.
Correct, it doesn't say the board is driving this decision by JEA (or that they're sympathetic with the Koch's). It's JEA staff proposing the change *to* the board.
If the Kochs own a ton of those 30 year bonds that utilities use to finance their power plants. I could see why they would get involved. From what I have read about them is that they arent against solar proper, they are against the tax credits solar gets from the Feds and states. From their view, solar is an uncompetitive, expensive form of energy.
If there was a more profitable way to integrate solar power, I am guessing they would get involved.
They do have a good side. The Kochs, through their foundations are some of the largest contributors to the United Negro College Fund, are working with the Obama Administration on reforms to the criminal justice system and are considered one of the top donors to the arts in New York.
Quote from: spuwho on March 11, 2016, 12:15:41 PM
From what I have read about them is that they arent against solar proper, they are against the tax credits solar gets from the Feds and states.
But the tax subsidies the oil industry receives are A-Okay.
Quote from: finehoe on March 11, 2016, 01:31:04 PM
Quote from: spuwho on March 11, 2016, 12:15:41 PM
From what I have read about them is that they arent against solar proper, they are against the tax credits solar gets from the Feds and states.
But the tax subsidies the oil industry receives are A-Okay.
Actually they're against those, too. They're against energy subsidies and corporate welfare more generally. BUT, they play by the rules that exist today (taking their tax breaks and subsidies) and make a lot of money doing it. However, they lobby to change a system that promotes crony capitalism by hopefully reducing the cronyism of it all. Is it fair to call them hypocrites? Yes. Watch this interesting interview from back in November with Charles Koch on MSNBC about his views on corporate welfare: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/koch--i-want-to-end-corporate-welfare-557925955640 (http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/koch--i-want-to-end-corporate-welfare-557925955640).
I think the best argument for wind, solar, biofuels, and other alternative energy not being able to compete on cost vs. fossil fuels is based on the embedded environmental and health costs...but that is tricky to quantify, to say the least. Carbon pricing is a minefield.
Quote from: stephendare on March 10, 2016, 03:29:47 PM
Folio weekly ran an article making the point that the reason this is occurring now is because Lenny Curry replaced JEA's board with people sympathetic to the Koch brothers http://folioweekly.com/WHATS-THE-COST-OF-SOLAR,14883
Lenny is turning out just awesome.
While politics certainly plays into this issue, I can see the reasoning behind JEA doing this. In any business model selling any kind of goods or service, you must buy or produce for less than you sell for. It seems to me that at the moment, JEA sells power for 11 cents and then buys any excess power for 11 cents. A great deal for the solar power producer. The article even stated that the higher purchasing price was to help kick start solar programs. Perhaps it is indeed time to bring the purchase price into a more reasonable business model. This is not going to kill solar, it may reduce profits for some. It may make it so that the ROI is less, but it won't stop it or kill it. It does seem that it will force the systems to be more competitive and that may not be such a bad thing.
As to Lenny Curry's JEA appointees? As they were not the ones suggesting this and this actually makes sense, yes, maybe Curry is more "awesome" than you think.
I really dislike government regulation. That being said, utilities like JEA which tend to alter their business models in order to "make 'em squeal", may be in deserved need of a little regulation. If consumers and JEA customers go through all of the financial, legal, and regulatory hurtles that are cast in the path of "clean energy" and "self sufficiency", then, a little legal relief just might be in order. If for no other reason, maybe, just to "level the playing field" for the consumer and utility customer. After all, none of us really have the resources to take on a legal battle against any of the mega billion dollar power companies. Any one of their lawyers, accountants, or lobbyists make many times the average yearly income of the average electric power consumer.
It was stated that the electric grid was not designed to accomidate the level of distributed generation that roof top solar power offers. Just a guess, but, I would venture that less than 1% of all the generated power on the JEA grid is from rooftop solar. The folks that fork out the money to produce rooftop solar power and offer it to other customers and JEA in order to offset some or all of their electrical power bill are thus penalized by the actions that JEA is proposing, in order that JEA can make more money.
Maybe it is time for JEA customers and consumers of electrical power throughout the state of Florida to demand legislation that would reward the costly efforts of those individuals who wish to make life better for their fellow citizens by permanently fortifying net metering legislation in our state. To penalize the Herculean efforts of those individuals and businesses that are endevouring to improve the lot of the rest of us is just plain wrong.
JEA is more than happy to provide a solar service offering to you. They go find the solar sources on the grid, mark it up for carriage costs and then charge you a "solar" per kWh rate.
This way, the homeowner doesnt have to put up the personal capital for the panels, JEA can recover their cost to service the meter and everyones conscience is clear.
I would consider it only if JEA publishes the book on how many sign up, how much solar they bought off the grid. How much tax benefits they got and and what their margins were in doing so.
Because I could easily see a utility charging twice as much for a "green energy" service and find that they using the margins or tax benefits to offset the pollution credits they have to buy for fossil.
If that were the case, it would defeat the whole purpose of the offering. It would look good on the surface, but would be "dirty" underneath.
I thought the idea in this 21st century was to move forward and become less dependent on fossil fuel- which is and has been the cause of all cancers, lymphomas and probably has lent itself to all the other MLS etc diseases that have become so prevalent in our country and the world. Once again MONEY takes front and center the greed of these companies. All the politicians that we elect to help guide this country are of course bought and paid for by these people. Not a one of them has a complete set of balls among them to stand up and try to do something that might actually move this country forward. How disgusting, disturbing and sad. I am a Democrat but do understand the followers of Trump. The Washington establishment are so scared to death of the shake up that would occur with Trump and they would loose everything their corrupt ways of doing things would be seriously jeopardized . Same thing with this solar- it makes no sense in a state like ours that everything should be almost completely run by the sun !!! No Brainer. Citizens please go and vote- educate yourselfs on the few that are running that they can be independent and has a full set to stand up for you and this state.
Quote from: wnettles on March 18, 2016, 11:50:18 PM
I really dislike government regulation.
In other words, you have no issue with tainted food be sold to the public, unsafe consumer products, employers being able to place their workers in danger with impunity, corporate fouling of the air and water....
The JEA is being unfairly picked on for trying to represent the interests of its owners who are also us, its ratepayers. Currently with 1/2 of 1% of all energy coming from solar the net metering at 11 cents per KWh does not make a difference. The 4 cent per KWh difference between that and power from fossil fuels (or nuclear) comes to about one quarter ($0.25) per month for a typical residential user. The issue is when we reach 10% solar the cost for everyone else will rise to $5.00 per month and at 20% to $10.00 month.
Because of the fact that night is already 1/2 of the annual time and clouds put a major dent in the rest of the time, solar cannot be effective more than 28% of the time to generate power. As a pretty little fluffy white cloud flies over the photovoltaic unit the power level drops instantly from 100% to zero. We need backup power or storage and we need it to be constant.
All net metering at 7 cents per KWh instead of 11 cents per KWh is prevent those who depend on fossil fuels who are usually not as wealthy as those on solar from paying them a premium over fossil fuels for power. Solar is fine for those who want to go that route but it should not be subsidized by everyone else paying a premium to those people for power.
Stop picking on utilities and question the ethics of someone who sells a product that supposed saves money but has a 20 to 25 year payback with subsidies and never will pay for itself without. To say that the grid is not needed by those on solar is totally wrong as what do they do for power the 72% of the time that solar is ineffectual?
Regarding the comparison to Germany. Because Germany pays such a high premium to its solar producers who provide 6% of the energy they are one of the most expensive nations in the world if you are an energy consumer. Germany is actually giving in to their Green party and shutting down nuclear which has drastically increased their coal and coal by wire energy percentage and their greenhouse gas emissions.
"As a pretty little fluffy white cloud flies over the photovoltaic unit the power level drops instantly from 100% to zero. "
NOT TRUE.
How do cloudy conditions affect solar power generation:
Answer here...........................http://understandsolar.com/solar-panels-and-clouds/
Quote from: brucef58 on March 19, 2016, 05:01:10 PM
Regarding the comparison to Germany. Because Germany pays such a high premium to its solar producers who provide 6% of the energy they are one of the most expensive nations in the world if you are an energy consumer. Germany is actually giving in to their Green party and shutting down nuclear which has drastically increased their coal and coal by wire energy percentage and their greenhouse gas emissions.
Yup - solar is still heavily subsidized by the bill payer. The bad effect is that due to there (at times) being an overabundance of electricity, the exchange price (before the solar subsidy mark-up!) has fallen so that only coal is competitive. New and efficient gas turbines had to go offline since they could no longer compete.
Add to that the fact that electricty supply needs to be predictable and stable (which solar and wind are not, at least not here in Germany), many conventional plants have to be kept on stand by which again adds to the electric bill and solar peaks are causing problems for the grid.
In terms of putting panels on the roofs, that is causing problems in case of a fire. Solar panels cannot be turned off, so they pose an electrocution risk to the fire fighters and as they make the roof heavier, a house will collapse much faster in case of fire. For political reasons, homeowners insurance is not increased for those who have solar panels, so those who do not subsidize panels a second time.
I am not against renewable energy sources but as a reliable and stable grid is very important, this should be done in a proper manner.
On the plus side, the German govts politics wrt renewables have helped kickstart the solar industry and brought panel prices down. Unfortunately, the industry was not supported where the govt would have liked to - initially, panel prices did not come down even though production cost did considerably. There was so much demand that manufacturers did not need to pass on their savings and to earn even more production was outsourced to China. Once the Chinese manufacturers had the knowledge, they decided to sell directly and as an end result plants over here were and are closing.
Maybe they are afraid Ikea is coming to town with their rooftop solar built in.
Ikea loves solar! Here is their Twin Cities store.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1467/25641450893_78d8f66c36_z.jpg)
I was also advised that JEA does pretty well off their solar farm out in Baldwin. The carbon credits alone make up for the addition to their rate mix.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1650/26177893121_1192d513c1_z.jpg)
I always said that if WalMart could run solar on every roof on every store they have in the US, they would create enough fossil fuel offset and carbon credits, it could be a revenue source for the next 25-30 years.
The Saft battery plant at Cecil Commerce Center seems to have it down. Lots of solar.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1463/26178522531_1eeaec328c_z.jpg)
Quote from: spuwho on April 04, 2016, 11:00:55 PM
Maybe they are afraid Ikea is coming to town with their rooftop solar built in.
Ikea loves solar! Here is their Twin Cities store.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1467/25641450893_78d8f66c36_z.jpg)
In southern Spain, where outdoor parking lots are often covered, Ikea installs solar panels on top of that. Also a nice idea.
(http://www.euroweeklynews.com/3.0.15/media/k2/items/cache/3d73304cc5ff7e92aa580d67ba95439b_L.jpg)
We tried to get these installed at an office park in Jacksonville. Unfortunately the funding fell through.
What was nice about these is they each have plug in stations for cars that have outlets for charging.
(http://www.dovetailsolar.com/getattachment/Solar-Electric/Solar-Canopies/Dovetail_Burke_35-web600.jpg)
Curious - has anyone on this site has enrolled in JEA SolarSmart? If so, do you have any feedback?
I think the comment about transparency is key. Will the premiums truly result in increased utility scale solar investment? If it just pads JEA's bottom line then I have no interest. If enrollment truly contributes to expanded solar capacity, then I would be interested in enrolling. Installing rooftop solar is not in my near term plans.
https://www.jea.com/my_account/understand_my_bill/rates/solarsmart/
JEA has never supported rooftop solar. They don't seem to understand what a benefit to their customers it could be. Their leadership is just f#cked up when it comes to this idea.
In fact for reasons that have never been clearly stated , Florida "The Sunshine State" lags behind many other states in use of rooftop solar power. Not even Top 10 from what I can find. What a wasted opportunity, as solar has the capacity to change the world. FLORIDA should be one of the World Capitals of Solar R and D. But thanks to Rick Scott and leaders like him we are not. Florida should offer discounts through a statewide solar co-operative that helps manufacture and install rooftop solar and portable solar units. These could then (of course) be sold and distributed throughout the planet, 'cause there is a big demand for it! If 2,000,000 Florida households signed up for the co-op then the price of manufacture would drop tremendously and thousands of jobs would be created for manufacture and install of the panels.
Then JEA and FPL could concentrate on what is going to be the really big issue for Floridians, PROVIDING CLEAN AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER PLUS WATER FOR IRRIGATION. Over the next 100 years that problem will dwarf the issue of generating electricity.
One other thing: JEA has always balked at paying a fair rate to people who generate more power than they consume (aka reverse metering). The argument is that those people don't pay their fair share in terms of maintaining the power grid. Well NO Shit. They are not using it as much. BUT they still pay the same rates as other users for the power that they need from JEA when they consume it. And JEA pays no subsidy to Solar users when the install is done, it is 100% the cost and responsibility of the homeowner, including maintenance although solar is practically maintenance free.