A "closed" neighborhood Facebook group began discussing this issue and asked me to join in. I found it much easier to respond to specific questions and statement and by the end of the night I found that I touched on most of the aspects that I've wanted to write about. Afterwards, as this topic has come up, I've wanted to point back to what I wrote in that group. So I'm going to highlight some of that conversation here, removing others' identity and editing for clarity: (Actually I did a lot of editing and rearranging to make it flow more logically.)
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Solar Thoughts
For a few days now I've been trying to express my thoughts on the 4-3 decision by the Provo City Council to implement a new fee on rooftop solar customers. I've responded to a couple of email and talked with several people in person, but I felt overwhelmed each time I sat down and stared at a blank screen to write this blog post.
A "closed" neighborhood Facebook group began discussing this issue and asked me to join in. I found it much easier to respond to specific questions and statement and by the end of the night I found that I touched on most of the aspects that I've wanted to write about. Afterwards, as this topic has come up, I've wanted to point back to what I wrote in that group. So I'm going to highlight some of that conversation here, removing others' identity and editing for clarity: (Actually I did a lot of editing and rearranging to make it flow more logically.)
A "closed" neighborhood Facebook group began discussing this issue and asked me to join in. I found it much easier to respond to specific questions and statement and by the end of the night I found that I touched on most of the aspects that I've wanted to write about. Afterwards, as this topic has come up, I've wanted to point back to what I wrote in that group. So I'm going to highlight some of that conversation here, removing others' identity and editing for clarity: (Actually I did a lot of editing and rearranging to make it flow more logically.)
Monday, October 3, 2016
Net Clothing
My wife and I were shopping at a fun boutique down on Center Street. We found a couple of shirts that I liked and got in line to buy them. We overheard the conversation going on between the store owner, who was working the register and the shopper in front of us. The shopper had selected three shirts from the store, but only wanted to pay for one of them and wanted to exchange two home-made shirts for the other two boutique shirts. The home-made shirts were actually pretty cute1, but were obviously of inferior quality2 than the boutique shirts. The store owner explained that she works with local producers, but that they are carefully selected and sign contracts so that the boutique can get a reliable supply of clothing at a good price. She explained that she buys the shirts wholesale and has to mark them up in order to pay for, among other things, rent for the store and wages for employees.
I was in line behind this customer thinking to myself, "it's great that we have have crafty people who are locally producing clothes, there are a lot of advantages, and we should support them, but it is silly to expect to get full retail, at your own convenience, regardless of the opinion of the retailer."
Then the lady in front of me said matter-of-factly, "Well, that doesn't matter, there is a new law called "Net Clothing" which requires you to charge me only for the difference in quantity of clothes that I buy. She laid down the home made shirts, cash for the third shirt, picked up the three boutique shirts and walked out of the shop.
The owner was pale and in shock when I stepped up to the counter. When she came to, she apologized to me and said that she'd have to charge us 5% more for our selection. She still had to pay rent and her employees, and now had an unpredictable stream of goods that she would have to compensate for.
I left the store thinking, "that law doesn't make sense. It's just not fair."
I'm sure you realize that this is not an actual experience, but an allegory. There is no law (that I know of) called "Net Clothing", but there is a common law across US called net metering which requires power companies to give full credit to "distributive generation" customers (those who produce power by solar, wind, or other technologies) for any electricity that they add back to the grid. Because Provo Power is a publicly owned utility, Utah's net metering law doesn't actually apply, but we have previously adopted a "Net Metering" policy on our own.
1,2In the allegory I suggested that the home-made shirts were "actually pretty cute" but were of "inferior quality". By "actually pretty cute" I'm acknowledge that roof-top solar has a lot of attractive qualities, and like local art and crafts, should be encouraged. By "inferior quality" I'm referring to the intermittent nature of the power source. Solar can't be used at night, but at least we know that and can plan on it. During the day, solar *might* be available, but it may not be. When securing contracts, solar production can't be relied on. And those contracts cost money whether the energy is used or not. My point is that there are pros and cons to solar energy.
I believe in solar energy. It isn't cost effective now, but future advancements will make it so. Those future advancements are funded by the commercialization of the current technology. Incentives are needed to speed commercialization and fuel the advancement. Incentives should be defined, deliberate, and phase out, just like the incentives offered at the state and federal level. Abusing the current electric rate system to act as an incentive is poor policy. It leads to things like sub-optimal panel placement which maximizes energy production, but not value. Provo will soon have smart meters deployed to every residence and will have a smart billing system which can be used to align customer incentives with the costs of providing electricity. In the mean time, Provo Power customers who are considering installing solar panels need to understand that they can not assume that the current electric rate structure will never change.
Resident who want to lessen the environmental impact of their electrical usage may want to consider Provo Power's Renew Choice program.
I was in line behind this customer thinking to myself, "it's great that we have have crafty people who are locally producing clothes, there are a lot of advantages, and we should support them, but it is silly to expect to get full retail, at your own convenience, regardless of the opinion of the retailer."
Then the lady in front of me said matter-of-factly, "Well, that doesn't matter, there is a new law called "Net Clothing" which requires you to charge me only for the difference in quantity of clothes that I buy. She laid down the home made shirts, cash for the third shirt, picked up the three boutique shirts and walked out of the shop.
The owner was pale and in shock when I stepped up to the counter. When she came to, she apologized to me and said that she'd have to charge us 5% more for our selection. She still had to pay rent and her employees, and now had an unpredictable stream of goods that she would have to compensate for.
I left the store thinking, "that law doesn't make sense. It's just not fair."
I'm sure you realize that this is not an actual experience, but an allegory. There is no law (that I know of) called "Net Clothing", but there is a common law across US called net metering which requires power companies to give full credit to "distributive generation" customers (those who produce power by solar, wind, or other technologies) for any electricity that they add back to the grid. Because Provo Power is a publicly owned utility, Utah's net metering law doesn't actually apply, but we have previously adopted a "Net Metering" policy on our own.
1,2In the allegory I suggested that the home-made shirts were "actually pretty cute" but were of "inferior quality". By "actually pretty cute" I'm acknowledge that roof-top solar has a lot of attractive qualities, and like local art and crafts, should be encouraged. By "inferior quality" I'm referring to the intermittent nature of the power source. Solar can't be used at night, but at least we know that and can plan on it. During the day, solar *might* be available, but it may not be. When securing contracts, solar production can't be relied on. And those contracts cost money whether the energy is used or not. My point is that there are pros and cons to solar energy.
I believe in solar energy. It isn't cost effective now, but future advancements will make it so. Those future advancements are funded by the commercialization of the current technology. Incentives are needed to speed commercialization and fuel the advancement. Incentives should be defined, deliberate, and phase out, just like the incentives offered at the state and federal level. Abusing the current electric rate system to act as an incentive is poor policy. It leads to things like sub-optimal panel placement which maximizes energy production, but not value. Provo will soon have smart meters deployed to every residence and will have a smart billing system which can be used to align customer incentives with the costs of providing electricity. In the mean time, Provo Power customers who are considering installing solar panels need to understand that they can not assume that the current electric rate structure will never change.
Resident who want to lessen the environmental impact of their electrical usage may want to consider Provo Power's Renew Choice program.
What's Up? - 3 October 2016
What's Coming Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center- A report on vendor selection for software related to the Council priority to improve public engagement (16-042)
Encouraging Public Engagement is one of our nine active priorities. As part of this effort we have been looking into some software that will facilitate online engagement with residents in a moderated environment. The findings and recommendations of the staff will be presented. - A discussion on parking
- A discussion on the Joaquin Parking Study (16-068)
- A discussion about potential amendments to parking standards in Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) & University zones (16-109)
- An update regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
- A discussion on vendor selection and implementation of Body-Worn-Cameras for Police Officers (16-103)
The Police Department is considering the implementation of body-worn cameras for its officers. Both the policy and the appropriation for the camera system is proposed. The policy tries to strike a balance between privacy and transparency. The cost will be somewhere around a half million dollars over a 5-year period. - A report and continued conversation regarding the balance of private solar energy generation, consumption, and net metering alternatives (16-093)
We've been talking about this for a while now. I'll go back to what I've written in the past, "In order to encourage conservation, and to reduce the burden on our lower energy users (who are assumed to also be lower income), we have previously set base fees low and charged higher usage rates. The base fees aren’t enough to cover the fixed costs of servicing homes, but the gap is made up by the higher usage rates. This system has worked well, but can be exploited by solar roof top and other “distributive” generators, who get the full benefit of being on the “grid” (like having their lights come on whether the sun is shining or not) but may not be paying toward the grid at all. During this discussion we will be looking into changes to our electrical fee structure in order to better meet our goals (conservation, reliability, low cost, fair costs, etc.)" This isn't about punishing certain customers. This isn't about a revenue shortfall. This is about making sure our electric rate structure makes sense even while the power landscape morphs. - A discussion on potential legislation related to Trampoline Gyms (16-105)
This item has also been discussed for a while now. I believe that we are getting close. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
Public Comment
- A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of James Miguel as the Chief of the Fire Department for the City of Provo. (16-107)
I don't believe I've met Mr. Miguel and haven't received any information about him so I look forward to learning about his qualifications. - An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 6.11 (Trampoline Gyms) to regulate the licensing of Trampoline Gyms in Provo. (16-105)
Same as Item 6 in the Work Session. - An ordinance amending Energy Rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-093)
Same as Item 5 in the Work Session. - A resolution appropriating $260,000 in the General CIP Fund for purposes related to the Fleet Facility Project and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-110)
There is no information on this item in the packet. - A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024)
There was an old, inefficient, polluting power plant on this property before the campus was redone. It will be replaced with a much cleaner, quieter power plant. The plant is not run regularly, it is used for contingencies. - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property, generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
This is a plot with a long and ugly history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)