We wonder how the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) would feel about vehicle-to-grid energy technology being promoted by automakers such as Honda and Nissan. Because when it comes to home solar power-to-grid transmission, the group of primarily conservative lawmakers and business folks aren't crazy about it, Grist says.

ALEC, a group of about 800 people that includes such notables as ex-vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, appears to be going after any and all things related to renewable energy, and that includes people who install their own home solar panels and sell their excess power back to the grid. In fact, ALEC not only is saying these people shouldn't be paid for the energy, but believes they should pay for the privilege of sending energy back to the grid because they don't have to pay for the grid's infrastructure.

ALEC has bigger fish to fry, of course, including moving more legislative power from the federal government to the states, preventing President Obama from mandating lower greenhouse-gas emissions and holding states back from promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Naturally, Greenpeace and the Clean Air Task Force are taking ALEC to task for its methods, while Democracy Now quotes Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy as saying ALEC practices "institutional corruption."

Meanwhile, the non-profit SUN DAY Campaign is accusing the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of underestimating how much renewable energy we will be able to contribute to the total US energy supply during the next quarter century. The group said that while the EIA forecasts renewable energy to account for about 16 percent of the total US energy generation in 2040, SUN DAY thinks that number will be closer to 25 percent. You can check out SUN DAY's press release on the subject below. And you thought the ethanol debate was contentious.
Show full PR text
NEW "ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK" CONTINUES TO LOW-BALL RENEWABLE ENERGY FORECASTS

For Immediate Release: Monday - December 16, 2013

Contact: Ken Bossong, 301-270-6477 x.11

Washington DC – The "early release overview " of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 issued today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) continues a trend of low-balling forecasts for the future contribution of renewable energy sources to the nation's electricity production that have not been borne out by actual experience.

The "reference case" in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 projects that renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) to grow only 28 of the nation's electrical generation by 2040.

However, if renewable energy merely continues the growth trend of the past decade, its share of the nation's electrical generation in 2040 is likely to be closer to 25%. Furthermore, rapidly falling prices, technological advances, and the need to address climate change suggest that the actual contribution of renewables in 2040 is apt to be far higher -- perhaps double or more the EIA estimates.

A few statistics derived from recent EIA and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reports * underscore how unrealistically conservative the agency's latest set of forecasts appear to be:

** Ten years ago, non-hydro renewables (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, wind) accounted for 2 and have grown every year over the past decade - unlike nuclear, coal, natural gas, or oil. Combined with conventional hydropower, renewables will likely account for close to 14 by June 30, 2013).

** During the decade 2003-2012, wind power output grew more than twelve-fold and is on track to increase another 20 of the nation's net electrical generation and many wind farms now planned or under construction will be providing electricity at costs lower than fossil fuels or nuclear power.

** During the decade 2003-2012, solar power output increased by more than eight-fold and in recent years has been sustaining the highest growth rates of all energy sources - both renewable and non-renewable - and experiencing rapid price drops that are making it cost-competitive (or nearly so) in many instances with non-renewable sources. While still accounting for a very small share of electrical generation (0.2% in 2013), solar output this year is expected to double that of 2012 which, in turn, more than doubled 2011's level.

** Geothermal continues to grow, albeit at a more modest rate - registering a 16 increase in 2013. Electrical generation by biomass and hydropower in 2013 is on course to be about 4% above the average annual levels recorded during the preceding decade.

** Renewable sources now account for nearly 16% of total U.S. operating generating capacity while almost a third of the new electrical generating capacity to come into service during the first ten months of 2013 is from renewables. In fact, actual renewable generating capacity today is roughly double that forecast by EIA in its Annual Energy Outlook just five years ago (i.e., 2008).

"Even if government support lessens in future years, competitive and ever-lower prices coupled with the pressures of climate change virtually assure that renewables will continue to grow at rapid rates that substantially exceed EIA's projections," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "Inasmuch as policy makers in both the public and private sectors rely heavily upon EIA data when making legislative, regulatory, investment, and other decisions, the agency has a responsibility to provide better renewable energy projections that more closely reflect the real-world growth rates of recent years."

# # # # # # # #

* The U.S. Energy Information Administration released its most recent "Electric Power Monthly" with data from January 1, 2003 through September 30, 2013 on November 20, 2013; see: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly. The relevant charts are Tables 1.1, 1.1.A, ES1.A, and ES1.B.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released its most recent "Energy Infrastructure Update," with data through October 31, 2013, on November 20, 2013. See the tables titled "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)" and "Total Installed Operating Generating Capacity" at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/oct-energy-infrastructure.pdf .

=======================

The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as cost-effective alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 97 Comments
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's unfortunate but understandable why the GOP continues to fight solar, because the GOP couldn't exist without the fossil fuel industries, especially oil. They owe their very existence to oil. It's sad, because I mostly agree with the Republicans about most issues, but definitely nor on this. The source of all power on earth, and in our solar system, past, present and future is the sun. And the more directly you harness the power, the cleaner the cheaper it is. Solar power is absolutely the future, but since the utilities and the old fossils cannot make much money on it, they will continue to lie and suppress it.
        sirvixisvexed
        • 1 Year Ago
        "but since the utilities and the old fossils cannot make much money on it, they will continue to lie and suppress it." It's too bad, because the old fossils (not the utilities) COULD make money off of it, by just getting into the solar business themselves. Solar panel companies are selling plenty, so get into the right business! Don't be stubborn and lazy. There's always morally positive profit to be made, but some are too stubborn to acknowledge it.
        Marcopolo
        • 11 Months Ago
        @ JackG " They (the GOP) owe their very existence to oil ". Really ? The first official Republican party convention ( July 6, 1854), adopted Salmon P. Chase's slogan "free labor, free land, free men", popularised in his 1956 Senate campaign. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln seemed to do okay without the oil industry ? Solar energy is simply a technology to produce energy, why do you have to attach old left (or Right) political arguments that only serve to confuse and alienate popular opinion about the merits of the best methods of adopting new technology, with irrelevant ideology.
      Rotation
      • 1 Year Ago
      Allowing people to sell power into the grid at full resale prices is something which was always known not to be workable on a large scale. In order for solar to grow beyond 5% or 10% or something of the grid, storage systems will have to be developed. And then people will reuse their own power instead of shoving into a grid which doesn't need that power and being paid full price for it even though it cannot be resole! What a terrible, terrible article.
        Sean
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rotation
        Solar produces power during peak hours when power is most valuable. It does not seem entirely unreasonable for someone to put expensive daytime power into the grid and in return take cheap nighttime power.
          Marcopolo
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Sean
          @ Sean You have a popular, but mistaken concept of how Power Grids operate. Power grids are designed to operate at predictable generation loads. Solar 'input' is unpredictable for the utility, and can be very taxing on infrastructure. Electric power distribution systems were designed to transmit electricity from the generation source to the consumer, while it's possible for the distribution system to accept power from outside sources into the circuit, it creates difficulties (as any one who has experienced a power surge, will tell you) . Often solar power is simply dumped by the utility, and with the expanding use of solar, a nightmare of unexpected calculations are created for the utility , including additional wear and tear on infrastructure, and much higher base power generation operating costs. Solar enthusiasts and idealistic government legislators, don't really understand the problems or costs of adding incompatible power sources to existing infrastructure. Compelling existing utilities to buy solar power, can result in significant economic losses. Technology is being developed to make alternate power sources more compatible, but this takes time and considerable investment.( Advanced computer modelling, helps new and more flexible infrastructure, and potential electricity storage technology ). I'm not saying solar power isn't valuable or doesn't have a place in sourcing power, ( I have solar panels on my own roof ). Rather I'm saying, solar power sold back to the grid isn't the problem-free bonanza that some Solar Enthusiasts believe.
      BraveLil'Toaster
      • 1 Year Ago
      That's funny, since ALEC's membership is now down to about 900 from 1300 thanks to their support for "Stand your ground" laws, according to the Democracy Now article you cited. And while this would be bad news in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, I don't see this being much of a problem nationally. Especially for the other reasons you state - like the fact that feed-in tariffs are way down on their list of things to do.
        Mart
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BraveLil'Toaster
        As a Mississippi Republican, I can say I am not pleased with the energy positions, but have no issue with "Stand your ground" or "Castle doctrine".
          Spec
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Mart
          Castle doctrine and stand your ground are very different.
          archos
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Mart
          What happens when someone applies stand your ground to you, or your family? You know, like someone gets in an accident, phone doesn't work, and they need to ring the neighbor's bell. Or they going for a walk and a local desperately wants a stand yer ground badge. A wrong headed law wrongly applied often creates unfortunate outcomes. May the odds ever be in your favor. Or in your case, not.
          Technoir
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Mart
          Stand your ground laws were WRITTEN by the gun manufacturer's lobby.....to sell more guns to gullible, easily frightened people.
      paulwesterberg
      • 1 Year Ago
      In Wisconsin the Republican controlled Public Service Commission, which regulates state electrical utilities, just axed rebates for residential solar panel installations.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        Fine enough. End the unfair subsidies ( financial, legal, permits and otherwise ) for fossil fuels in the state then too. Oh wait! this isn't free market supporting fiscal conservatives we are talking about, just left-right fascist cronies propping up certain industries.
          sirvixisvexed
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          "Oh wait! this isn't free market supporting fiscal conservatives we are talking about, just left-right fascist cronies propping up certain industries." Well said and worth repeating. These days there are almost none of the former and many of the latter. Sad.
      Ryan
      • 1 Year Ago
      ALEC is the most evil right-wing organization around. The sad thing is that they know how to get into state office and run companies to control them to make a few more bucks for them and prevent any progressive improvements from happening. I will keep my solar panels and EV and say "F you" to the coal companies and Big Oil companies and the people and politicians that are running them and have formed the ALEC cartel.
        DaveMart
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ryan
        I'd tend to agree with you about the organisation. Unfortunately in this case they do have a point, and at least if you live in areas with harsh winters the cost to the grid of people who have solar arrays is considerable, as they have to provide power just when they have least to spare. As always it is the poorest who are hardest hit, as rental properties aren't going to have solar arrays, and they are charged top dollar for every kilowatt hour. It hardly seems fair that they should have to subsidise people who can afford to have a solar array. None of that diminishes my dislike for 'fry the planet' advocates like ALEC.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          2WM: How useful spare solar power is to the grid depends on the area. Where summers are hot and there is no winter peak, then apart from issues running aircon into those hot nights then it is not too bad. The costs are an utterly different matter in places where the winter is tough.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          Ine: See above for analysis of ELECTRICITY use in the northern states of the US in the winter.
          archos
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          No, they are not right in this case. This is a ridiculous ploy pushed by utility and energy companies which are funding ALEC, to reduce adoption of solar panels by raising the users cost. In the end you are a foolcell shill, and foolcells are being pushed by the oil industry, so its understandable you support ALEC despite your pitiful attempt at portraying yourself as devil's advocate.
          lne937s
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          In America very few people in harsh climates use electric heat and electricity consumption is dramatically lower in the winter throughout most of the country. America is much different than Europe: Natural Gas is used for heat in most homes, followed by fuel oil here on the East Coast. The few places where they tend to use electricity for heat (like Southern California and Southern Florida) also tend to have fairly mild and sunny winters. In the US, the main driver of brownouts is air conditioning in the summer.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          The infrastructure cost of sending the energy back should get rolled into the price you get paid. Just like how when you pay the power company, what you are paying for is not just energy, but the cost of their infrastructure, their taxes, employees, etc. These problems are solved with an adjustment in business model.
          DaveMart
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          2WM: Modern nuclear plants can ramp up and down very fast, it is just that the ones currently powering the US grid weren't designed with that in mind, as it costs almost nothing to keep a nuclear plant running as the cost of fuel is tiny. Gas is usually the fuel of choice to deal with peaking load, and there are a hierarchy of states of readiness. Solar can often throw heavy transient load on the grid, as it can vary massively literally with the passing of a cloud. That means spinning reserve, which is ready to take over in a second, but burns some fuel to be ready to go so soon. Peak load gas turbines also tend to be much less efficient than the ~65% combined cycle gas plants which run most of the time, and are single cycle which is cheaper to build. This all means that the savings in carbon emissions are less than would otherwise be expected. Germany, with a very high proportion of solar, is having big problems with voltage drops. The cost to insulate equipment can be massive: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html the big problem though for the purposes of our present discussion is the cost of all the back up gear, and the transmission lines, maintenance etc. In some areas of the US the charges would severely impact the viability of solar arrays. That is some areas, not all of them,
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          When solar output is peaking, the power company can throttle back the generation of power easily and adjust dynamically on the fly. I think the exception to that is Nuclear; where it must always be on and has a base load that can't be turned off. If you want to adjust how much coal is being burned, I believe that you adjust the oxygen intake. Sort of like a throttle. It may be the same with natural gas.
          Ryan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          I have been poor (about 10 years ago). If we have a discussion about how to go from poverty to a stable financial lifestyle where they are out of debt and can start saving, I have some real ideas about how to do that. One of the first on the list is to use as little power and gasoline as possible. The savings, month after month, start to add up. And if I didn't have to pay $300/year just to be hooked up to natural gas, and $160/year just to be hooked up to the power grid, it would go a long way to having more money in the bank.
      EZEE2
      • 1 Year Ago
      "ALEC, a group of about 800 people" (only off by double) "With nearly 2,000 members, ALEC is the nation’s largest, non-partisan, individual public-private membership association of state legislators." Did you write this to re-gain favor with the readers here? For those people who actually like to THINK about stuff, how about including: * What is the legislation? * What is their reasoning? * Are there potential issues with the selling of excess electricity? Also, when you post sources that only include Grist and Democracy Now, one might think you have just a little bit of slant in your article. Does it ever occur to you that some of the readers might like to actually learn something? For those thinking about installing these systems, which states are considering this legislation? Where can we go to voice our opinion? Are all of the legislative items the same or different by state? On this line, you state, "In fact, ALEC not only is saying these people shouldn't be paid for the energy, but believes they should pay for the privilege of sending energy back to the grid because they don't have to pay for the grid's infrastructure." Like roads, do we not have to maintain the nations power grid? At some point I plan on installing Solar on my fashionable Golf Course Home in Orlando, Florida, and I would like to know if these rules 'might' be coming to Florida. Would there be a deadline, would the rules be retroactive? Come on man, you can do better.
        DaveMart
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        Wow! I actually agree with most of that! The grid infrastructure adds on average around half the cost of power in the US. So, if you use half as much as the average due to having installed a solar system, then the charge, currently nil, for using the grid needs to be around double what other folks pay, is the financial reality if there is to BE a grid. In practise the costs to the grid vary depending on when demand happens. If you are in Arizona, then the grid is probably OK to have a lot of solar, as the output of the arrays are pretty much in the point of high demand. If you are in New England, say, there is a heavy winter peak as well as a summer one, and the grid being hit by demand from folks who use little from the grid in the summer, right in the middle of the winter peak, costs a lot of money. The bit I disagree with is this: 'Come on man, you can do better.' No he can't. You should know this by now! ;-0
          Greg
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          "...then the charge, currently nil, for using the grid needs to be around double what other folks pay, is the financial reality if there is to BE a grid.: First, this isn't uniform. It varies by state, as power companies tend to be state-regulated. Some charge an "infrastructure fee" separately from sale of power. And policy for handling sale of solar electric power back to the grid varies considerably. Second, you seem to be making assumptions as to the business model. And I can't quite figure out what your business model is...something about paying more for using the gird less :). You can pay a flat fee for being connect to the grid. You can pay proportionally to the amount of power you use. You can pay proportionally for the amount of power you use plus the power you produce. There can be a non-linear scale so high-volume users/producers subsidized the low-income people who can't afford fancy solar. Here in CA, we recently passed a state bill that effectively uses the flat monthly fee for selling power to the grid, and allows the power companies to negotiate reasonable rates for buying power from homeowners. Simple. Everyone wins. No need for hair-pulling or histrionics. It's not rocket science.
          danfred411
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          wow, that's because you have similar mental defects to Ezee. Solar power is near the consumers. It doesn't go all the way back to the power plants. It's used in the immediate vicinity and indeed is unburdening the grid... If it's anti green and republican then how mindless do you have to be to not know that it is evil. Come on dude. You can't do better.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DaveMart
          @davemart LOL at the last lines.... :D
        EZEE2
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        Alrighty to all of you. All of you have read more into my post than is there. Yes, I am a radical right wing extremist, but do I support ALEC or their legislation? Do I oppose it? I don't do either, simply because there is nothing in this article that actually says anything. They don't mention a single legislative initiative. I know most of you are left wingers of some variety and therefore you are suspicious of anything a limited government organization would suggest, which is fine. But this post identifies nothing. It doesn't mention a single piece of legislation, nor any specific action. As I said, I would like to install solar on my roof, so I would not be happy about new fees, especially if they were monthly fees. But how do I get angry and work myself up when no one can identify what they are talking about? I, being your friendly, and non-emotionally invested, neighborhood radical right wing extremist, am simply saying that this article offers absolutely nothing by way of usable knowledge, and until I hear an actual detail or fact, I won't get myself angry or threaten to kill people, like your side has above.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EZEE2
          @rak I looked on the Alec, democracy, and grist websites referenced in this piece. I'm just one man! Let me live! Why won't you let me live?
        danfred411
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        Ezee, the truth has a well known left wing bias. It can't be trusted.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @danfred411
          @daryl Wait what? I don't evn
          DarylMc
          • 1 Year Ago
          @danfred411
          Not to mention their plans for your precious bodily fluids.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @danfred411
          All of your communists throughout history have talked about the importance of controlling information. To suggest that left wingers are wedded to the truth would ignore the stated goals of many on the left.
        otiswild
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        My co-op factors in a $23/mo baseline charge for infrastructure, as well as about 40% of the retail cost of the power I buy. I reckon I already pay enough for line maintenance, and any money I'd get back for generating excess power would not include that per-kWh maintenance/delivery fee. I'm still mulling adding solar to my house, I reckon 8-10kW should be sufficient, but the way these guys are talking I am considering getting battery backup as well and going off-grid.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @otiswild
          Keep us up to speed on what you do, your system, etc. ABG may not want to educate us, but if you get a real world system, I would love to learn about it, and from it.
        paulwesterberg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        I think you forgot the quotes around non-partisan.
          EZEE2
          • 11 Months Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          @nick Yea...that is what I thought, but I was lazy (just as Rak, he will confirm that I can be lazy) and I really don't like saying anything I don't know to be true. Again, I only posted that so that the 2000 member thing was in context and I didn't cut a sentence off. All of those organizations, right wing or left, hide behind that rule for the tax exempt status.
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          I'm sure any Democrats, Green Party, or American Communist Party members who support ALEC's principles and pays the membership fees would be welcome - in fact, going by ALEC-member Chris Taylor's story, they're willing to take someone who's very anti-ALEC: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/rep-chris-taylor-in-alec-s-underworld-democracy-is-a/article_ba371f6f-f61c-5169-baa9-1b42f355ae5c.html The group doesn't provide information about its membership, including the current number of members, but Wikipedia has an incomplete/dated membership list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          @EZEE2 - You're right - the claim to being non-partisan, aside from sounding good, stems from the fact that 501(c)(3) organizations are not allowed to support specific candidates or participate in campaign activities. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html 501(c)(3)s are funny things - they can be extremely political, but they have to respect the invisible fence that stops just short of campaigning. They can have politicians as guest speakers, but can't let a candidate make a campaign speech at one of their events, for example, though it seems politicians are never not campaigning. 501(c)(4)s are different, and according to Wikipedia, "may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.284.29 While ALEC may seem as politically-polarized as a (c)(4), it's role is one of education and providing tools to elected officials (such as their model bills), rather than for campaigning, so its focus and respecting those boundaries allow it to operate with full tax exemption - there are plenty of (c)(4) organizations out there that overlap purposes that they don't need to participate in campaigning directly.
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @paulwesterberg
          @paul Unlike the author of this website, I actually did a little research and went to the Alec website. I copied and pasted that info. Obviously all of these organizations claim on partisan - it is probably a tax thing. It is safe to assume that any organization that believe in less regulation will have members that gravitate toward the right wing, or libertarian. Those that believe in more regulation will gravitate left. When I copied that, I was pointing out that Danny was off by a mere 250%.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        2EZEE -- You whine and complain about the story not having the list of legislation, and then you don't even bother to go beyond just quoting off the ALEC website. It took a whole 2 seconds for me to click through to this example of model legislation that ALEC is proposing that Republican Congress members who belong to ALEC should pass in their states: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Legislative Exchange Council encourages state policymakers to recognize the value the electric grid delivers to all and to: 1. Update net metering policies to require that everyone who uses the grid helps pay to maintain it and to keep it operating reliably at all times; 2. Create a fixed grid charge or other rate mechanisms that recover grid costs from DG systems to ensure that costs are transparent to the customer; and 3. Ensure electric rates are fair and affordable for all customers and that all customers have safe and reliable electricity. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/835856-eea-2013-snps-35-day.html#document/p11/a132415 In case you are easily persuaded by the buzz-words, what ALEC is trying to do is to kill residential solar. They want to do this in every state they can, for example they have already tested this in Arizona: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/11/12310/campaign-against-net-metering-alec-and-utility-interests%E2%80%99-next-attack-clean "On November 14, the Arizona Corporate Commission (ACC), the state entity responsible for regulating utilities, voted to charge ratepayers a monthly fee of 70 cents per kilowatt of solar energy installed on their roof. Arizona Public Service (APS) had proposed charging customers who install rooftop solar panels an additional $50-100 on their monthly bills." ". In the latest attempt to rollback pro-clean energy policies, fossil fuel and utility interests operating through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are proposing new model legislation to slow the rise of the clean energy industry by weakening net metering policies" These rates of $50-$100 dollars on top of people's monthly electric bill have absolutely no relationship to the actual use of the grid this customers will need by installing solar. Only a yes-man puppet for ALEC would even try to argue that. This is obviously an outright attack on solar energy, attempting to kill it, in a clever disguise that some people will fall for. You don't think they are going to be upfront and honest as to their goal, do you? Why is it that I can find this stuff in a matter of seconds to answer your questions, yet all the best you can do is goto the ALEC website and parrot from them? Seriously, you can't complain about the blog not posting every answer to every question you have, when you can't even bother to go beyond the ALEC website yourself. Now, there are at least 3 more model legislations that ALEC is pushing currently that attack green energy. Can you find even one of them yourself...
          EZEE2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          As I stated above, responding to the wrong post, I looked at all sources referenced in this article. You simply can Internet better than I. And now you want me to look further? I have to find one of three? Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force Market-Power Renewables Act Summary: This bill is designed for states with a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) on the books where passage of the ALEC model Electricity Freedom Act would be unlikely. Instead of an entire repeal of a state’s RPS, this bill removes the regulatory burdens that prevent electricity ratepayers from purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), in effect creating a voluntary market for renewable energy. The state’s existing RPS is recalculated annually, reducing the existing renewable energy requirement by the state’s voluntary RECs share. The remaining RPS is then eliminated in 2025. Pre-emption of Local Agriculture Laws Act Summary: This bill makes legislative finding and declaration that regulation of agricultural seed, flower seed, and vegetable seed and products of agriculture seed, flower seed, and vegetable seed be reserved to the state. This bill prohibits enactment or enforcement of local measures to regulate agricultural seed, flower seed, and vegetable seed or products of agricultural seed, flower seed, and vegetable seed. Renewable Energy Credit Act Summary: Some state RPS programs were designed to place artificial caps on the number of renewable energy credits that can be used to satisfy a state’s renewable energy requirement. Furthermore, many of these programs limit where utilities can purchase credits. This proposed model legislation would remove these caps and allow credits from any party—but not limited to private citizens, businesses, and merchant renewable electricity producers—to satisfy a state’s existing RPS program. This proposed legislation also contains a provision encouraging utilities to evaluate new and existing options for citizens and businesses to participate in voluntary markets for renewable energy credits and determine if increased advertising and marketing would increase participation levels. Resolution in Opposition to a Carbon Tax Summary: This resolution opposes all federal or state efforts to impose a carbon tax whether or not it is revenue neutral. Resolution in Support of Electric Power Grid Modernization Principles Summary: Several state legislatures and state public utility commissions are examining ways to modernize their electric power grids. These efforts to modernize electric power grids have raised significant issues relating to reliability, efficiency, privacy, and cyber-security, among others, for policymakers and consumers to consider. To assist policymakers as they consider these issues, this resolution establishes foundational principles for electric power grid modernization.
      danfred411
      • 1 Year Ago
      Sometimes it would be nice if someone like the Arrow was real. Swift justice for evil men.
      Marcopolo
      • 11 Months Ago
      Danny King's done it again ! The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), has a very small membership, (at it's height maybe 2000). That 2000, are largely restricted to fairly rightist legislators and like minded supporters. Danny King's article is designed to whip up a frenzy of indignant conspiracy theorists, Solar enthusiasts and leftists, thereby ensuring a passionate, response (mostly rant's). Well, I guess that's what journalists do ! But what the hell is Danny Kings article actually about ? Danny starts by telling inflaming his readers with a rehashed hashed opinion from a leftist environmental publications, thinks about something ALEC might have said. (we never find out what Alec actually said, only what other leftist publications said about ALEC). But, even more curiously, the article turns out to be nothing to do with ALEC. Instead, the article article appears to be about what Kenneth Bossong ( Sun Day campaign, Renewable Energy World ,com) thinks about a report published in the U.S. Energy Information Administration" "Electric Power Monthly" . What all these things have to do with each other, except they are all vaguely connected to Solar Power, is anyone's guess. Like I say, that's what journalist do ! But it might have been far more honest, if each of these disparate subjects had been dealt with as separate articles.
        EZEE2
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marcopolo
        @marco See my post on the bottom. As a radical right wing extremist (on Christmas morning,mi did NOT give the families their furniture back), obviously I agree with many right wing positions (duh) but I also have no problem with disagreeing, as, I am an engineer and whatnot, so facts matter. In thus case, Danny's post just....well had nothing. Rak, below, filled in a few blanks (then I did more because he got mad at me for not researching and called me lazy, which, as I climbed out of bed at noon to make instant coffee, I was offended), but the post was worse than nothing. In was in accurate, listed none of these initiatives, had no statement or analysis on the ALEC position, and only cited left wing sources. I implored Danny to do better and DaveMart just laughed....HE LAUGHED at me!
        Mami
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Marco it is hard to take you seriously when you post deceiving comments like the one you wrote above and the ones you have been writing about hydrogen as of late. You are not fooling anyone.
          Marcopolo
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Mami
          @ Mami, "You are not fooling anyone" Well, I'm glad that you've be reading my comment's at least. However, I think you miss the point. I don't approach alternate energy technology as part of any political ideology, or philosophy. My observations on HFCV's are not 'advocating' HFCV' technology, but a simple assessment of it's potential as a replacement fuel for gasoline/diesel. I'm not on anyone's 'side'. I'm not an EV enthusiast, because I hate oil companies, but because I believe that EV technology has the potential to be a superior method of road transport . Choosing sides, and trying to believe in any technology as a sort of new faith, is absurd. (sort of like trying to win a Chess game on faith alone). But first and foremost, any new alternate fuel technology must be environmentally beneficial, and potentially economically feasible. Any analysis must contain all relevant factors, to reach a probable conclusion. Just including the things you like, and underestimating alternatives, will always lead to disappointment. I realise that this is hard for some people to understand, especially those who see everything in terms emotion or the tenets of any political philosophy.
          Mami
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Mami
          @Marcopolo No person without an economical or political agenda would side with a technology which solely exists for the benefit of special interest. Hydrogen is wasteful, pollutant and monopolized. You're still not fooling anyone.
      Grendal
      • 1 Year Ago
      My state might be one to adopt this (if anything comes of it) since my governor, Susana Martinez, will likely be the VP nomination for the Republicans. She will want to show that she is part of the Party since that is how politics works. Talk is cheap, we'll see how this plays out. It might just be talking points to gather money for the coming Presidential election from energy interests.
      DarylMc
      • 1 Year Ago
      Hi 2WM I am interested how those swamp coolers work out in actual use. It's not the same area of course but when you go to bed, a refrigerated AC should use less than 500W to keep an insulated room cool. I imagine the blower motor on an evaporative unit is a lot more than that.
        JamesJ
        • 1 Year Ago
        @DarylMc
        They use a lot of water. I notice while I was in El Paso that the newer homes are using AC units now.
        Marcopolo
        • 11 Months Ago
        @DarylMc
        @ DarylMc Hi, Daryl, I hope you've had a great Christmas and will enjoy a prosperous New Year ! (despite all the economic gloom). As I write, it's about 3 degrees outside in the UK, and I long to be home in the Australian sunshine ! Evaporative cooing is very effective in hot dry climates with relatively low humidity. It provides fresh cool clean air at between 10-15 % the cost of refrigerated air-conditioning. In general, Evap's are also healthier, avoiding the shock of leaving 'canned' air when leaving the building, removing to much humidity. Evap's are also faster in reducing temperature, quieter, and don't over cool living areas. Clean, well maintained. properly designed evaporative cooling systems, should use only modest amounts of water, and 'new tech' pads are being developed that with recover and recycle almost 82 % of the water used. Evap's are terrific for hotel bars, restaurants, shops with large open doors, large spaces, factories and buildings with large crowds. Domestic situations need more careful planning. Modern homes with open plan, large windows, tile/timber floors, and surfaces, are more suitable than older, more traditional homes. In addition to the compressor, refrigerated air-conditioning systems also employ one or more fans. Because my home in Melbourne was built in the late 1920's, and due to Melbourne humid climate,I have a refrigerated ducted air-conditioning system, which is relatively expensive to operate. In contrast, the evaporative system on our farm in the Ovens Valley, operates at a fraction of the cost. ( But mostly, I just think evap's seem more environmentally friendly. :)
          DarylMc
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Hi Marcopolo Merry Christmas to you too. Evaporative cooling systems are a bit of a mystery to me since I've never lived with one and will take your word for it. Yes it's nice and warm in Brisbane. I resolved to never again complain about the heat after spending a year in Mt Isa so I wont:) But I am seriously considering a visit to Sichuan to enjoy some of the cool.
        DarylMc
        • 1 Year Ago
        @DarylMc
        Hi James The last town I lived in had a trend of moving from evaporative cooling to refrigerated also. It was in the desert but unfortunately there was the odd period of high humidity in the peak of summer. I don't know how much water evaporative coolers use but I would have thought it would be OK as long as you have a good supply. Maybe people use bedroom sized evaporative coolers there. The only ones I've seen have from 500-1550W blowers.
      RC
      • 1 Year Ago
      You have to wonder if these people are extraterrestrials with a pristine Planet lined up as a backup biosphere. Don't they benefit from cleaner air? aren't they supposed to be "conservatives"? Or are they just out to conserve the interest of the 1% ? http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
        Ashton
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RC
        As a conservative republican, these people are dead to me.
          hodad66
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ashton
          but they are running your legislative agenda......
        brotherkenny4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RC
        Many people enjoy the lower brain activity that result from huffing various pollutants. They are calmer, slightly more drooly, and blissful.
      Technoir
      • 11 Months Ago
      Don't forget these are so-called "free market" capitalists; yet they do the exact opposite here by trying to suppress an energy source. This just shows what their "free market" whining is all about: their own financial interests. The Koch brothers strike again.
        EZEE2
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Technoir
        The Koch brother are often seen with Emmanuelle Goldstein.
    • Load More Comments