3 ms·
Voting YES would be safer, not that cramming random crap into the constitution is pretty. Net metering will bankrupt the power companies, leading to a bailout.
by tropo 10y ago
Voting YES would be safer, not that cramming random crap into the constitution is pretty. Net metering will bankrupt the power companies, leading to a bailout. It'll make Enron look minor. Here is why:
1. Some people install grid-connected solar. This being Florida, they cover 100% of their average electrical usage via the solar. This causes their power bill to go to zero, so they no longer contribute to the cost of maintaining the power lines that they benefit from.
2. The cost of grid maintenance is shifted to the non-solar customers. With the rising cost of power for consumers, more people install solar. Prices for consumers continue to rise.
3. Eventually there are very few people actually paying for power, even though everybody remains connected to the grid and expecting to get power at night. The power company is forced to buy daytime power that goes unused -- they need to burn it off somehow! The few paying customers have to cover the cost of that, plus the entire cost of the grid.
4. At some point, non-solar people are forced to disconnect. If they can't install solar, they will just have to move away. They can't afford to support everybody else and the grid.
5. There is no revenue. Costs are crazy high. The power company can not pay for employees or fuel. They start to let stuff break and shut down. The grid-connected solar users find that power is often unavailable during the night.
6. The state government issues an emergency order to take control of the power company in some way. There is a huge bailout.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoCan't this be fixed simply by separating the electricity usage charge and "supply charge". We have this in Australia where we are charged a daily rate just to be connected to the grid.
- OrwellianChild 10y agoThis is funny because you are quoting, almost exactly, the death-spiral fear mongering that the parent article debunks.
- tropo 10y agoIt was actually happening in Hawaii until the state put a stop to new installs. The death spiral isn't obvious at first. It can take some time to really get going. In the short term, there will even be the occasional benefit for the utilities, such as avoiding an upgrade. The death spiral is still there though, even if it gets off to a slow start. In any case, it just makes sense that: 1. all customers should pay a fair share to support the grid, even if they are exclusively selling power 2. pay for solar-generated power should be according to current (this moment right now) value, at wholesale rates, discounted due to fluctuations and the inability of the utility to choose when they buy it
- CountSessine 10y agoCompletely agreed, but rooftop solar won't be economical for homeowners unless it can continue to game the billing structure and time-shift electricity pricing.
- noonespecial 10y agoEven if I agreed completely with the this (which i don't) I'd still have to vote no because of the underhanded way they tried to sneak it through. If the utilities are really concerned about this they can honestly approach the citizenry and try to work out a solution. If none can be reached, perhaps its a signal that an emergency power grid isn't something that should be in the hands of a profit seeking oligarchy in the first place.