Some time ago, the Minnesota legislature mandated that a certain percentage of electricity be produced by renewable, non-conventional sources, such as, let's say solar and/or wind.
So, the Minnesota utilities started putting in those solar farms and/or wind farms.
Of course, someone has to pay for feeling good.
Obviously, Minnesotans would help pay for those solar farms and/or wind farms. It would make them feel good.
Maybe that was enough. Maybe not. Or maybe if the utilities found someone else to help pay, utility rates would be lower for Minnesotans. That would make them feel good, too.
So, the Minnesota utilities decided to see if North Dakotans would like to help pay for their expensive solar energy and/or wind energy.
The story will finish with the help of The Bismarck Tribune:
Northern States Power Company, a subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy submitted an application to the North Dakota Public Service Commission (ND PSC) requesting that North Dakota consumers help pay for the cost of
The ND PSC rejected the application, not because the commission is anti-solar (we all love solar energy; we all want to feel good), but solar energy from Minnesota is:
a) not "least-cost planning"; and,I love that last part, "not needed." Northern States Power noted that it would have excess capacity in its energy generation through 2023 without the solar projects. In other words, "not needed."
b) not needed
The three solar projects were going to be located at three sites in Minnesota. The solar energy sites Northern States Power wanted North Dakota consumers to help fund:
- North Branch, MN (100 MW)
- Marshall, MN (62 MW)
- Tracy, MN (25 MW)
Apparently "least-cost planning" does not include the Algore "feel good" clause commonly found in federal accounting methods.
And so it goes.
I don't think I know any of the members on the ND PSC but if we ever cross paths, I will buy each of them a steak dinner. I'm no longer a North Dakota resident so I don't think that would be a conflict of interest. In lieu of a steak dinner, a gift of sun tan lotion might be appropriate.
******************************
Speaking Of Solar
Apparently Arizona is experiencing a near-Minnesota experience. The Phoenix Business Journal is reporting:
Arizona fell out of the top five in overall solar installations during the first quarter, in large part because local utilities didn't have any projects. [In a few minutes, you will see why.]
GTM Research recently released its U.S. Solar Market Insight report, and Arizona placed eighth in the U.S. for installations. For the quarter, the state saw 32 megawatts of installation.
It's likely those numbers will drop in the future as local utilities look to increase what solar customers are charged, according to the report. [Well, duh.]
Arizona Public Service must meet standards dictated by the Arizona Corporation Commission to get 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025.
ASP's Salt River Project adopted new rates for solar customers in December that has drastically reduced the number of systems being installed within the utility's territory.
An APS move to request a tripling of the charges solar customers pay per month could be another factor in slowing residential solar in the state. [Well, duh, Sherlock.]Then this last paragraph:
"With that in mind, Arizona's residential market is still expected to grow 27 percent year-over-year, but [solar?] demand is expected to dip in 2016 and then flat line as the market adjusts to nearly all utility service territories rolling out or considering new solar-specific charges for residential solar customers," the report said.Maybe readers will understand that article better than I but I'm having trouble understanding two of the paragraphs.
The first paragraph that perplexes me: "An APS move to request a tripling of the charges solar customers pay per month could be another factor in slowing residential solar in the state." Well, duh. If your rates are going to triple to feel good (to pay for solar energy) ... well, duh....
The second paragraph that perplexes me: "With that in mind, Arizona's residential market is still expected to grow 27 percent year-over-year, but demand is expected to dip in 2016 and then flat line as the market adjusts to nearly all utility service territories rolling out or considering new solar-specific charges for residential solar customers."
If I'm reading that correctly it states that despite increasing energy needs in the state of Arizona, less will come from solar energy because it's too damn expensive.
I bet if I want, I can find a gazillion articles telling me that solar energy is as cheap as conventional energy if I do a google search. Of course, all those articles will come from the following websites:
- gogreen.com
- feelgoodwithsolar.com
- Algore.com
- PTBarnum.com
- globalwarmingisnotamyth.com
- janenielson.com
Disclaimer: I had trouble understanding that whole article. Either I'm more dense than the average Arizonian or there was a bit of obfuscation in that article. If I have misread it, I apologize to all Arizonians.
********************************
A big thank you to readers for sending me links to these articles.
Sam Kinison would have had fun with the Arizona story.
Let me try to explain. 27% of (insert rounding error here) is 0%, which will flatline as rounding error approaches 0%. 0%/0% does not = 1. That's the math of sunny places, imagine how it works in cloudy places.
ReplyDelete