Xcel Proposing to Raise Rates for Solar Customers
July 17th, 2009 : Posted in Solar Energy NewsWe need support from solar households and residential net metered customers!
It has come to the attention of Bella Energy that Xcel Energy is proposing another rate increase this year. This new measure is targeted specifically at net metered customers and will penalize home owners that have chosen to invest in solar energy.
We need your voice! If you don’t stand up no one will.
We are asking each and every one of our customers, and anyone is considering solar energy for their home, to call or write the PUC to voice their opposition the the proposed rate changes.
The proposal will have a public comment hearing on:
Wednesday, August 5th
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
1560 Broadway, Suite 1550
Denver, CO 80202
If you cannot attend this meeting, please write the PUC to voice your opposition to the new rate change, and your support for solar energy, BE SURE TO REFERENCE DOCKET #09AL-299E.
Under Xcel’s proposed rate structure:
- Every residence with a solar system will be charged a ratcheted MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE-regardless of how much electricity is generated by the solar system in that month. If a solar household purchases electricity from Xcel Energy in ANY twelve-month period, Xcel will charge the customer for that same amount of electricity as A MINIMUM CHARGE EVERY SINGLE MONTH FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS-even in months when you are producing all of your own electricity!
- If you purchase electricity from Xcel Energy in more than one month, the new minimum monthly charge will be pegged to the month in which you purchase the GREATEST number of kilowatt-hours!
- These charges are IN ADDITION to the current monthly minimum of $7.50 already paid by solar customers!
From the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA)
The Public Service Company of Colorado (aka Xcel Energy) filed a proposal for another rate hike with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on May 1st. The proposal also includes a new charge for net metered customers.
CoSEIA and its members believe that both the rate hike and the new charge are discriminatory and designed to penalize Solar Energy Households & Residents with grid-tie solar systems in Xcel territory. These households and residents will be subject to a SOLAR PENALTY under the proposal currently being review by the PUC.
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE AT THE PUC’S PUBLIC HEARING IS IMPERATIVE!
Please spread the word and try to turn out as many voices as possible!
Sincerely,
Beth Hart
Executive Director
CoSEIA
Tags: Solar News, Solar Rates, Xcel
July 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Can this wording be true? I installed a large system recently.
Suppose my electricity cost with no solar panel would be $600 a year, for an average of $50 a month.
Suppose that in December my panels are completely covered in snow (this happened this year) requiring me to purchase, say, $65 worth of electricity from XCel. Dec. is darker and colder than July so usage in Dec. is above the $50 average.
Then XCel wants to charge me $65 a month for the next 12 months. So my expense to XCel over the year would be 65 x 12 = $780. This would be MORE than if I had no solar PV system at all. So at this point the solar panels would be costing me money, and therefore I should put the entire system in the trash, and eat the $25,000.00 I paid for it.
Is this really the intent of the request? Does this make sense to anyone?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I left a note with the PUC:
I strongly oppose the proposal, this change in the structure of electric utility charges is highly unjust and anti environmental!
The basis at which PV system are installed will be completely overturned and the decision to install a PV system will have been completely wrong, this surely cannot be the intention of a pro-environment-government policy.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
As we currently understand the proposal, this is the intent of the proposed rate change by Xcel Energy. We are with you in that it makes no sense and certainly is not a positive action for renewable energy investment or the households that have chosen to invest in renewable energy. For these reasons we are asking all our customers and anyone who is considering solar to attend the PUC hearing and voice their opinion.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Can you please post a link to, or the text of, the actual proposal here?
Thanks!
Steve
July 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
The docket proposal can be found by clicking this link…
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
This is stealing, plain and simple. I would like them to tell their regular customers that the new bill for the entire year is based on a month when we have ten days of 100 degree plus temps. Don’t use your AC because it will cost you for an entire year! Just further proof that no good deed goes unpunished.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
We have posted an update concerning the proposed rate change by Xcel Energy…
You can view this update here…
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Concerning the update and the explanation for the plan, please ask them how net metered customers are some how not already paying their fair share. What exactly is it about net metered customers that makes it so expensive for them? If this passes, Xcel will in effect have tricked those who invested in solar panels into building a power plant for them. They get to sell the energy we produce and then charge us for energy we don’t consume.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Thank you for your comment and question… we will pass it along to our contacts and see if we can get an answer.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I had some errors in my earlier posting. I have since spent a lot of time, including a conversation with Ted Niemi of XCel, the witness who composed the document presenting the proposal to PUC. It is all moot now, but one point that no one has picked up on is that a minimum charge encourages waste. If I am paying for X kwH every month from XCel, I may as well use them. Well, not exactly — I would be paying for about X/4 because of the 2.6 cent charge. But the point is still that it is a min charge, encouraging me to use, at no cost, X/4 kwH. This is (was) a very bad approach.