California official: utilities would like to “strangle” solar
Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2014, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: SFGate
Unless you follow California energy regulation very, very closely, youve probably never heard of Mark Ferron.
For nearly three years, Ferron served on the California Public Utilities Commission, the panel that sets utility rates, oversees telecom companies and plays a key role in Californias fight against global warming. The CPUC faced fierce scrutiny in the wake of the deadly 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, with critics accusing the commissioners of being too cozy with the companies they regulate. But much of the time, a seat on the five-member panel isnt exactly a high-profile job.
Ferron abruptly resigned his post last Thursday. And people in Californias solar industry have been talking about him ever since.
Ferron, a former executive with Deutsche Bank and Salomon Brothers, stepped down to focus on fighting prostate cancer, which his doctors diagnosed in 2012. In one of his final acts as commissioner, he penned a three-page goodbye note that gives a remarkably blunt assessment of the state of California energy and climate policy, as well as the CPUC.
Read more: http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2014/01/21/california-official-utilities-would-like-to-strangle-solar/
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D32220D6-0C9B-4413-A6F6-87C65E44AF2F/0/99FinalCommissionerReport140116.pdf
2. We are fortunate to have utilities in California that are orders of magnitude more enlightened than their brethren in the coal-loving states, although I suspect that they would still dearly like to strangle rooftop solar if they could. Modern utilities are subject to a rapidly evolving business environment, and I wonder whether some top managers at our utilities have the ability or the will to understand and control the far-flung and complex organizations they oversee. And I am very worried about our utilities commitment to their side of the regulatory compact. We at the Commission need to watch our utilities management and their legal and compliance advisors very, very carefully: it is clear to me that the legalistic, confrontational approach to regulation is alive and well. Their strategy is often: we will give the Commission only what they explicitly order us to give them. This is cat and mouse, not partnership, so we have to be one smart and aggressive cat.
4. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, with the passage of AB327, the thorny issue of Net Energy Metering and rate design has been given over to the CPUC. But recognize that this is a poisoned chalice: the Commission will come under intense pressure to use this authority to protect the interest of the utilities over those of consumers and potential self-generators, all in the name of addressing exaggerated concerns about grid stability, cost and fairness. You my fellow Commissioners - all must be bold and forthright in defending and strengthening our states commitment to clean and distributed energy generation.
msongs
(67,193 posts)controlled "projects" in the deserts. edison et al are the enemy of the people
K&R
FreeState
(10,552 posts)We have solar panels and I'm pretty sure SDGE loves that we do. By law we have to sell it to them at the lowest rate. You have to sell it to them in order to have solar panels, you can not go off grid. They are getting a great deal - and they should, they are the ones who pushed for these laws.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)A lot of people appointed by Arnold are still in state government and still 'working' against the people.
Warpy
(110,900 posts)Solar farms are popping up like mushrooms all over the state, people with fallow land leasing it to the electric company for solar. And it's working, it's not like we're getting any rain or snow this year.
There are also wind farms but they're mostly out in the boonies.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Any solar is of course better than none, but the big projects by the utilities are not nearly as good as distributed i.e. consumer-owned ... IMHO
Warpy
(110,900 posts)and it would have been close to 50 years. When installations get cheaper, I'll do it, along with most other people. They're making great advances in solar technology. Eventually it will filter down to the customer level.
That's what I get for being such an energy miser, too long a payback period.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I don't know where you live, but many states offer tax rebates for solar. At any rate, even without these rebated, the most it should take you to break even is 20 years.
Some friends went off the grid with their small farm about 30 years ago, and they told me that even with the expense of deep cycle batteries every 4 or 5 years, they have payed back their investment in 18 years. This was before there were any incentives for solar.
So you might want to go back and check your math.
Warpy
(110,900 posts)and I'm a miser. Those two things make a big difference. If I lived in a deregulated (stick em up, sucker) state, I'd already have converted.
My math is just fine, thank you.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)They never met a rate increase that they didn't like.
Support for the "public"? Laughable.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Their own employee was killed and they still play nice with PG&E.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion
nikto
(3,284 posts)We should nationalize the entire energy industry and make it totally PUBLIC, not private.
We also need to do that with water and The Fed--Totally PUBLIC, with no private involvement.
Make the administration of all US domestic energy and water policy and supply totally transparent and PUBLIC.
And keep private business out of it!!
druidity33
(6,435 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)that preconception is way out of date.
corruption, money and poverty are the main things we have going for us.
nikto
(3,284 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Perhaps the management has been there since the days when generation and distribution were the same company? That might explain some of the reluctance, as they may have old friends in the central generation system. And of course the traditional system probably seems straight forward compared to the problems of distributed generation.
I think you really need someone with a vision of a successful distributed ISO to lead the organization. With enough drive and technical know how to push through the changes. IMHO