So it'a surcharge for people who install those and wish to sell back into the grid their extra energy. And it's a charge when you install this not , one time only.
I really think this was blown out of proportion
No it wasn't... It's not a one time fee, it's monthly.
The article says: "the surcharge is needed to recover some of the infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid."
That's saying that the electric company is charging a fee to reroute the extra power the system produces; this would be monthly. They're doing this to prevent people from selling power: "utilities need the new surcharge to prevent customers who can’t afford the installation costs of distributed generation from subsidizing customers who have the systems installed." It says nothing about selling power back into the grid, the electric company is taking it!
Makes sense now?
From my point of view , as a customer in a country in which because of this new eco friendly hype and price of those green certificates my bill has almost doubled in less than 3 years..
Why do you want to sell your extra power back into the grid? For profit right? So , pay the damn tax if you want to get more money.
You don't want to depend on the electric company , just stay with your solar panel and wind turbine and rely on your batteries.
Besides , you said it was monthly... so how is that "Customers who already have those systems installed wouldn't be affected by the bill" possible ?
I'm glad you asked...
People who already have a solar powered system installed are grandfathered because they're not attached to the electric company's grid so the power company
can't charge them for the 'excess' power they produce. Read the article again and allow it to soak in - 'Utility customers who want to install rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines could face extra charges on their
bills ' If this were a one time 'set up' fee so to speak, the sentence would have read: 'Utility customers who want to install rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines could face extra charges on their
bill.' The plural use of bills vice bill is the first indication this isn't a one time charge. Also, look at your utility bills. Utility companies use the term
surcharge to describe recurring monthly charges, one time fees are just that, a fee. Oh, not to mention, the article actually says: "It sets up a process at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to
establish a separate customer class and monthly surcharge for distributed generation such as rooftop solar or small wind turbines." Guess it really is a monthly charge.
Also, people who actually have these systems could care less about selling power back into the grid for a profit. Their profit would be in the form of savings! If anything, you'd profit by selling the power to your neighbor, which is what they're trying to prevent with this bill.
The whole point is to free oneself from the power companies, not have your power counted as it leaves your generator back to the power company. Think about it... that's how the electric company will charge you, a metered approach. Those who already have a solar powered system aren't metered so they can't be regulated. I wouldn't be surprised if the surcharge to put your excess power back into the grid isn't higher per kw than the actual cost if you were to using theirs. Their point for the giant power houses is to make it non-economical for you, as a consumer, to own a solar powered system.
Electric companies will fight tooth and nail so that we have to depend on them for electricity. They'd be out of business if they didn't find a way to charge people for solar power because more and more people are adopting it. It's not nearly as expensive as it was several years ago, and it doesn't take a genius to build one. And rest assure, this won't be an inexpensive tax. They have to make it undesirable for you, the consumer, to even think about it.
You say: "You don't want to depend on the electric company , just stay with your solar panel and wind turbine and rely on your batteries." I think what you're failing to realize is that this bill will strip this option away from solar power users. Their excuse is simple: they have to
regulate solar power users to prevent them from becoming little power houses of their own, no matter how small the competition. Imagine a neighborhood producing power for their entire community with a mini wind turbine, completely independent of the electric company. They can't and won't have that.
Does it make it little more sense now?
