- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Oklahoma Green Energy Tax
Posted on 4/21/14 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 4/21/14 at 11:57 pm
What-the-what!?!
From the information I've read it seems the most common outcome of home turbines and solar panels is to supplement the power already being used. Even if generating power in excess of what the home is using were common, making a law to tax a statistically irrelevant number would only make sense if each of these frickers were running their own Mr. Fusion units.
(customized DeLorean, eccentric yet brilliant scientist and obligatory teen(s) not included)
The power being generated is no different than if the 200 homes turned off their electricity for a month. This is fricking ridiculous.
quote:
The measure was opposed by environmental groups and renewable energy advocates but welcomed by the state’s utility companies Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma -- which argued the bump in price was needed to recover infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid.
quote:
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. has roughly 200 customers on net metering plans out of 780,000 in Oklahoma, the paper reported.
From the information I've read it seems the most common outcome of home turbines and solar panels is to supplement the power already being used. Even if generating power in excess of what the home is using were common, making a law to tax a statistically irrelevant number would only make sense if each of these frickers were running their own Mr. Fusion units.
(customized DeLorean, eccentric yet brilliant scientist and obligatory teen(s) not included)
The power being generated is no different than if the 200 homes turned off their electricity for a month. This is fricking ridiculous.
4
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:40 am to Bard
quote:
The power being generated is no different than if the 200 homes turned off their electricity for a month. This is fricking ridiculous.
Makes perfect sense
You want to use their transmission lines to lower your exposure. Transmission lines that they freely ran to your home, based on usage estimates, that no longer exist
So solar panel purchasers want to make money off a system they did not fully pay for. Or electric companies could bill you up front for the transmission costs. Solar wont be a good idea then will it?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:43 am to League Champs
quote:According to Harry Reid, it's un-American to oppose solar energy, so it MUST be a good idea, unless you're a domestic terrorist!
Solar wont be a good idea then will it?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:59 am to Bard
Net metering is a mess for utility companies. Look for power operators to try to make their lives miserable. They are already limiting commercial-scale net metering in many locations.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 6:30 am to Bard
They also passed a law banning the minimum wage increase. They aren't just avoiding the issue like other states, they proactively banned it. OK puts the Deep South to shame when it comes to being Red.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 6:49 am to Taxing Authority
Why don't they just have a flat monthly fee for an account plus a bill based on usage?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 7:01 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
They also passed a law banning the minimum wage increase. They aren't just avoiding the issue like other states, they proactively banned it. OK puts the Deep South to shame when it comes to being Red.
I i like this but will plead ignorance . If a minimum wage increase is enacted and is a federal law, can a state just ignore it?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 7:13 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Net metering is a mess for utility companies. Look for power operators to try to make their lives miserable. They are already limiting commercial-scale net metering in many locations.
The thing with this is that this is the government penalizing consumers for not using as much electricity. there is nothing in their logic that makes sense.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 7:17 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
They also passed a law banning the minimum wage increase. They aren't just avoiding the issue like other states, they proactively banned it. OK puts the Deep South to shame when it comes to being Red.
Are you kidding? Oklahoma is one of the most gay friendly places I have ever seen. Also, most of the people in that are already mixed race, so they are far ahead of the south in many ways.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 7:27 am to NoNameNeeded
quote:
Also, most of the people in that are already mixed race, so they are far ahead of the south in many ways.
What the frick?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 7:36 am to League Champs
quote:
You want to use their transmission lines to lower your exposure. Transmission lines that they freely ran to your home, based on usage estimates, that no longer exist
you should do a little research before you post...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:52 am to Bard
quote:You're totally leaving out the part about the utility companies having to deal with thousands of uncontrolled, unmonitored, generators back feeding the grid.
The thing with this is that this is the government penalizing consumers for not using as much electricity. there is nothing in their logic that makes sense.
It really isn't a penalty against using less electricity. People can choose to be non-net metered. In doing so, they can't sell their excess power back to the grid.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:10 am to League Champs
quote:
Makes perfect sense
You want to use their transmission lines to lower your exposure. Transmission lines that they freely ran to your home, based on usage estimates, that no longer exist
So solar panel purchasers want to make money off a system they did not fully pay for. Or electric companies could bill you up front for the transmission costs. Solar wont be a good idea then will it?
:notsureifserious:
The average home uses ~30,000 watts per day (very rough number, pulled from 2012 average).
The average modern photovoltaics (PV) solar panels will produce 8 - 10 watts per square foot of solar panel area. For example, a roof area of 20 feet by 10 feet is 200 square-feet (20 ft x 10 ft). This would produce, roughly, 9 watts per sq-foot, or 200 sq-ft x 9 watts/sq-ft = 1,800 watts (1.8 kW) of electric power per day.
Let's say the average middle class roof is about 40x60. Not taking into account the space left on the sides or between sets of panels for access, we'll be generous and say the entire 40x60 area is used. That's 2,400 sq-ft * 9 watts for a maxiumum of 21,600 watts per day, or 8,400 less than the average use.
This sort of installation would cost somewhere north of $20k, if I remember correctly.
These are all pretty much optimal numbers, not taking into account cloudy days, tree cover, temperature changes, regional climate, etc. and they show just how difficult it would be to produce enough electricity to send back across the grid.
And that's just the consumer end, it doesn't even begin to touch on the bullshittery involved in the assumption that must be inferred that the Oklahoma grid is constantly running at 100% capacity.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:26 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You're totally leaving out the part about the utility companies having to deal with thousands of uncontrolled, unmonitored, generators back feeding the grid.
It really isn't a penalty against using less electricity. People can choose to be non-net metered. In doing so, they can't sell their excess power back to the grid.
Going through the story again, I see where they mention metering in talking about customers but not seeing where it's mentioned that the bill is targeting only meterers.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:51 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You're totally leaving out the part about the utility companies having to deal with thousands of uncontrolled, unmonitored, generators back feeding the grid.
Pulled up some other stories and that's the case (it only effects people putting energy back into the grid).
I still say the problem is bullshite because the bidirectional meters used for net metering are provided by the electric company and not only does it monitor how much you pull from the grid and put back into the grid, but the cost to electrical companies for buying that energy is lower than if they produced it themselves (if I remember correctly, my numbers may be out of date though).
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:42 am to Bard
quote:This varies widely by utility and state, and utility.
I still say the problem is bullshite because the bidirectional meters used for net metering are provided by the electric company and not only does it monitor how much you pull from the grid and put back into the grid, but the cost to electrical companies for buying that energy is lower than if they produced it themselves (if I remember correctly, my numbers may be out of date though).
In TX, you get market rates for your electricity, so your 3kW solar system competes with the 3GW natural gas plant. It isn't competitive, as the grid is often overpowered.
Completely different rules in CA, where the buyback rate has a guaranteed floor.
But the real problem is grid management. In TX the grid often has too much power. (except when its really hot or cold). The grid manager (ERCOT) has no ability to turn off the residential solar systems, unless the homeowner installs a VERY expensive SCADA system. So they have to turn down their huge gas/coal plants, which is not only expensive, it's inefficient as hell.
It's not a huge problem, yet. But some utilities, especially those in the CA and Southwest are trying to get in front of it.
I realize it seems counterintuitive. But in most places the power companies need steady loads more than they need additional power. And the infrastructure to manage thousands of additional generators into grid management simply doesn't exist at this point.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 10:44 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:47 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
This varies widely by utility and state, and utility.
In TX, you get market rates for your electricity, so your 3kW solar system competes with the 3GW natural gas plant. It isn't competitive, as the grid is often overpowered.
Completely different rules in CA, where the buyback rate has a guaranteed floor.
But the real problem is grid management. In TX the grid often has too much power. (except when its really hot or cold). The grid manager (ERCOT) has no ability to turn off the residential solar systems, unless the homeowner installs a VERY expensive SCADA system. So they have to turn down their huge gas/coal plants, which is not only expensive, it's inefficient as hell.
It's not a huge problem, yet. But some utilities, especially those in the CA and Southwest are trying to get in front of it.
I realize it seems counterintuitive. But in most places the power companies need steady loads more than they need additional power. And the infrastructure to manage thousands of additional generators into grid management simply doesn't exist at this point.
It sounds like the various grid owners need a better way of managing excess flows or the consumers just need to let their excess bleed out during times when the grid is maxxed.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:58 am to Bard
quote:
The thing with this is that this is the government penalizing consumers for not using as much electricity. there is nothing in their logic that makes sense.
I makes total sense. The cost of those poles and wires is embedded into each kilowatt you buy. Those costs are amortized out for years and decades. Even after paid for, you have constant added costs for upgrades and maintenance.
If you stop buying kilowatts, you cut off the funding for the infrastructure. That cost then becomes stranded which then jeopardizes the financial stability of the utility, which in turn jeopardizes it's ability to deliver power.
One solution for those who want to go "off the grid" is to physically cut them off. If they don't want to help pay for the infrastructure then they should have no access to it. The other solution is to keep them connected at a flat capacity fee. This way they have to option of buying utility kilowatts on cloudy days and still pay for that option (which goes to infrastructure) when they have enough of their own.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:24 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
you should do a little research before you post...
Your should improve your reading comprehension skills
quote:
The new measure, which passed the state legislature and is expected to be signed into law soon by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, charges residents who install energy-saving devices on their property an additional monthly fee.
This 'tax' has zero to do with reselling power on the grid, and everything to do with recouping infrastructure costs. That's why EVERY customer with "energy-saving devices" will pay extra, regardless whether their system will ever produce enough electricity to sell back or not
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News