The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Is Oklahoma about to institute a “Sun Tax”?

The legislature has passed and the Governor has signed a measure allowing electric companies to charge an additional fee to customers who get part of their power from wind or solar energy.

The problem is the fee has not been set. That will be up to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Seth Christ is with Ion Solar in Tulsa:

SETH CHRIST: “Mr. Customer, if you would like to install wind or solar, we want to charge an additional fee. Is it $5 a month, $50 a month, a $100 a month? We don’t know.”

He says older customers will be grandfathered, but he doesn’t understand why the state is turning its back on a green energy source.

SETH CHRIST: “All other progressive states are going the opposite way, you know, helping people. Solar and wind, Distributed Generation is what it is called, has value in our state. But, we are going the other way and creating a Sun Tax.”

He says that uncertainty is impacting business. Christ says until that fee is set; customers are hesitant to consider a greener source of power.

The Public Service Company of Oklahoma pushed for the plan. PSO's Stan Whiteford says the utility is not opposed to green energy. He says the wind does not blow nor does the sunshine 24/7.  Whiteford says it costs PSO to same to supply service to those solar customers during their (customers) no generation time.

STAN WHITEFORD: "Senate Bill 1456 was not to pick winners or losers, but to make sure customers that have Distributed Generation and those who don't are neither advantaged or disadvantaged.

Whiteford says it is wrong to call it a fee or a tax. He says it is a but tariff.

STAN WHITEFORD: "All customers have a tariff. Residential customers are on the Residential Tariff. Industrial customers are on the Industrial Tariff. All parties involved will be creating a Distributed Generation Tariff at the Corporation Commission.

The law goes into effect in November. Christ expects a legal challenge to the law.

The fee is only applicable if you have solar or wind power and intend to SELL IT back onto the grid. That requires additional infrastructure, meters, billing systems, etc.

For time number 1,000 I've replied to this:

The fee is only applicable if you have solar or wind power and intend to SELL IT back onto the grid. That requires additional infrastructure, meters, billing systems, etc.

Why does there need to be a law?

Everything the utilities do is defined by law. Prior to this law, they just had to hook people up and distribute the costs across rate payers.

And they asked for the law. Are you saying that the power they buy from the solar homes is of no value? They do not resell it? Is it not fungible?

The model the solar companies work from is in conflict with the utility companies model so the lobbyist's battle for position.

I believe the producer would receive the profits from the sale of electricity they generate. Most likely the utilities are required to pay them a set market price equal to what they charge.

Examples of how it works:
When you buy a $20 widget the retailer makes $7 and the producer makes $9. leaving a cost of production of about $4.
When you buy $20 of electricity, in a regulated market (like oklahoma) the cost of production and distribution is $19, and the producer/distributor nets about $1.
In a deregulated market, the cost of production and distribution is still $19, the producer makes $1-$2, the distributor makes another $1-$2 and the retailer makes another $5-10.

For time number 1,000 I've replied to this:

The fee is only applicable if you have solar or wind power and intend to SELL IT back onto the grid. That requires additional infrastructure, meters, billing systems, etc.

AEP/PSO doesn't want to pay you what you pay per kw/h for electricity you put back into the grid.   (From what I am told, this is the way it did work.    It just rolled your meter backwards and that much electricity didn't get billed/was credited at your kw/h rate)   They want to pay you based on what it costs them to buy from the lowest cost provider at the time.

But isnt the idea behind a Smart Meter to be able to track that rollback so as to apply a different rate per kWh?

If I don't and the solar/wind user is assessed because he sold back his excess capacity is that fair?

If you're selling something, you should pay cost associated to sell it.

Independent generators in Oklahoma have to pay a fee to put their electric on the grid. There are two large ones in the Tulsa metro. Why get a free ride because you sell a little?

Not to mention, this is a lot of debate over very little. Almost no-one has the setup to sell back to the grid. Generally people who have solar, wind, geothermal are using it to reduce usage and not power their neighborhood.

The seller paid to have the solar/geo system installed. The seller paid to have the grid attached to his home. The seller is not getting a free ride.

Aggregate sales and future revenues. Small amount currently (no pun intended) and few users but the law wasn't written capriciously. They can see the handwriting on the wall.

Not to mention, this is a lot of debate over very little. Almost no-one has the setup to sell back to the grid. Generally people who have solar, wind, geothermal are using it to reduce usage and not power their neighborhood.

If the person is selling and not using electricity, then they didn't pay a dime for the grid to be connected to their home, technically.

Technically, yes...they do pay a dime.  Several dimes, in point of fact.  If you use 0 kwh - you still pay a monthly fee just to be connected.

If you fed electric back to the grid that offset that fee, then yes, you still did pay the fee, by supplying a certain dollar amount of power back to the grid - at a very much reduced, wholesale rate. 

When the house was built, and the grid connected, there was a fee charged - which typically was financed for 30 years in the mortgage.... paying for the grid to be connected to their home...

I trust you and your knowledge of these things.  You should probably call a meeting with the people in charge and tell them to clarify these things or expect the backlash.

Technically this bill is better for about 99% of the people in Oklahoma as previously the costs of distributing power were paid only buy the people consuming and not by the people selling. Plus no-one has said what the fees would be. Could be $10, and a $10 charge to <1% of the population will stir up no-one by the time it takes effect in November.

No, the point of a smart meter is to automatically report it's usage data over 3G instead of being read manually, which means you can do variable rates.

You're a good soldier Grizz but on soft earth. Consider why so much work spent to pass those fees when you note so little is gained and how much effort in opposing it.

Given the question, I think you meant to say  "Yes, the point of a smart meter is to automatically report it's usage data over 3G instead of being read manually, which means you can do variable rates."

My belief (no real knowledge) is that since solar and wind power is increasing in efficiency, they wanted to make sure that people don't start running their own little power companies and making the customers foot the cost of upgrading transformers, lines, etc.

While there may be some cost to run lines to a new addition, likely the infrastructure put in when all of our editions were originally plowed is not the same infrastructure in use today. New lines and transformers are being installed daily servicing existing customers paid for by the per/kwh fees.

Pretty sure you just made this up, as I can find nothing other than a standard "connection charge" for new customers.

I said no because you said "the idea behind a Smart Meter to be able to track that rollback" when they are being put in to track usage, and I'm not sure the models being installed are even capable of recognizing and tracking the reverse.

The fee is only applicable if you have solar or wind power and intend to SELL IT back onto the grid. That requires additional infrastructure, meters, billing systems, etc.

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Public Service Company of Oklahoma has announced plans for a six percent increase in what it charges customers for the price of fuel.

Tulsa-based PSO said Friday that the increase is needed for the company to recover what it pays for fuel used to generate electricity. PSO says the increase is due primarily to the rising price for natural gas that occurred following high customer demand for natural gas and for electricity during winter.

The company says the increase will amount to $5.68 cents for the average residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

PSO is a unit of American Electric Power and has about 540,000 customers in eastern and southwestern Oklahoma.

Your electric company saves money if you use a grid tied solar or wind system at residential scale. It reduces their peak power costs, it reduces their transmission costs, and it reduces their generation costs. The only extra cost involved, and this is going away now that they have single meters that can measure flow in either direction, is a second meter.

We are being forced to pay for saving the electric company money.

Yes, there might be costs in the future, when residential generation exceeds 20% of total demand, but we are nowhere near that yet.

How to win friends and influence people...

PSO Proposes Six Percent Fuel Increase

http://kwgs.com/post/pso-proposes-six-percent-fuel-increase (http://kwgs.com/post/pso-proposes-six-percent-fuel-increase)

Blame the company who sets the gas price :)

During peak power events is generally when DG homes pull power from the utility, not provide power back to. They may not be pulling as much, they are generally pulling.

And as far as the meter, based on what Patric says they don't really work for a house selling electric back onto the grid. It sounds like they would need a separate or different model of meter. (not to mention that there are only a few of those kind of meters in Oklahoma as part of a pilot program, so hard to assume what the future is given a small beta program.)

Reading GE's lit, its clear that the new smart meters were designed with managing customer-generated power in mind (in addition to a few other things).
What I gather is AEP is gambling it can get the ratepayers rather than the stockholders to cover the costs of any infrastructure investments.
Boo.
 

The timing is unfortunate.

Grizz....comparing a Mexican Restaurant model with a utility company model is poor logic. For one thing, utilities don't serve tamales or desserts.

Using less, or selling back, doesn't save an electric company anything. By that logic, the owners of Los Cabos are getting rich off of me not eating there.

During peak power events is generally when DG homes pull power from the utility, not provide power back to. They may not be pulling as much, they are generally pulling.

If the utilities buy DG power at rates like they pay other wind/solar plants, it would raise generation costs. Most power generators negotiate and buy/sell at their own rates, but I can only assume that the utilities will be required to pay a flat rate set by the OCC even if they don't want it and even if that price is above what it would otherwise cost to generate it.

And as far as the meter, based on what Patric says they don't really work for a house selling electric back onto the grid. It sounds like they would need a separate or different model of meter. (not to mention that there are only a few of those kind of meters in Oklahoma as part of a pilot program, so hard to assume what the future is given a small beta program.)

Pulling less saves the utility money by reducing transmission and distribution loss, which is at its greatest during peak load, as well as shaving peak load, which is generally the most expensive for them to buy.

It saves the electric company money to replace meters with remotely readable models, which just so happen to all be capable of metering both directions. New technology is amazing.

Basically, distributed generation reduces their capital costs and their variable costs, yet somehow we're expected to pay them for reducing their expenditure. It's weird.

Grizz....comparing a Mexican Restaurant model with a utility company model is poor logic. For one thing, utilities don't serve tamales or desserts.

Not to mention they don't have a monopoly....

This is under the assumption that the utility does not have the capacity to serve peak load, and you are about one state too far north of that assumption.


If they then generate twice what they need, and sell it to the utility at 50% off retail (both wildly inaccurate, but easier for math) then they are "saving" the utility $25 but the utility is providing $50 worth of wires service for $10, making a net loss of $15 for the utility.

If, in your mind the customer is getting such a bad deal, then they should unhook from the utility.

PSO has always had way more capacity than local load - probably still does - maybe you can enlighten us? 

In previous requests to the Corporation Commission for rate increases, it was explained - or maybe mis-explained if this not the way it is - that the base monthly fees were adjusted to take into account the capital expenditures (wires) and another component of cost was for fuel.  So, the customer is actually paying for the wires, even if using half the wire capacity any given month.  Or is PSO gonna start giving a discount for the infrastructure expense not used??      I thought not....

PSO has always had way more capacity than local load - probably still does - maybe you can enlighten us?  Back in the 70's when they were trying to shove Black Fox down our throats they were "warning" about how critical it was to build, 'cause we were running out of power - when they were selling over half the power they generated to Texas.  Remind me again how that was in Oklahoma's interest to build more capacity so they could sell it to TX at about a penny per kWH and keep us paying several times that rate??  In a previous life, only a few years ago, I was doing some pretty large scale electrical testing with a monitored usage situation using PSO.  In summer, from around 2 to about 7 pm, the rate was huge - it could cost me $1.25 /kWH while running a 2,000 HP motor - the 4 to 5 pm hour, I think it was.  At night, outside of 'prime time', I could run it for $0.015.... 1 1/2 cents per kWH.  I ran it at night.  (About 1,400 kwh per hour....don't wanna pay a couple grand per hour just to 'watch' a motor turn round and round.)

Wildly inaccurate is the key phrase there in that horrible example - a home generator gets nowhere near 50% of the retail rate.  More like a penny and a half or so.  12%-ish....?

In previous requests to the Corporation Commission for rate increases, it was explained - or maybe mis-explained if this not the way it is - that the base monthly fees were adjusted to take into account the capital expenditures (wires) and another component of cost was for fuel.  So, the customer is actually paying for the wires, even if using half the wire capacity any given month.  Or is PSO gonna start giving a discount for the infrastructure expense not used??      I thought not....

2000 HP?  Holy crap! What were you running it for?

Because he could?

https://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1266

Look at your bill. You pay based on usage, just like your water bill. There is no "base monthly fee to cover capital expenditures"

2000 HP?  Holy crap! What were you running it for?

Yep...because I could.  Pretty cool thing - a lot of fun to "light that up" - even if ya couldn't actually see the motor....  Required a soft start - about 8' high x 15' wide x 4' deep.  The motor is 7.5" in diameter....I'll let that one soak in a while.... some here will know what I'm talking about instantly.

2000 HP motor was 7.5” diameter or the shaft?

Motor.  Shaft about 2" or so...can't remember exactly.

Pray tell, how do you get 2000 HP out of the windings on a 7 1/2 inch diameter induction motor?

Pretty good trick, huh?  I didn't think of it by a long stretch....Armais Arutunoff came up with that in the late 20's.  VERY sharp engineer!  Immigrant from Russia.  Worked with Phillips Petroleum and ended up starting a company called 'Russian Electric Dynamo of Arutunoff'.  Will leave the acronym as an exercise for the observer.   Company still going in Bartlesville.  As well as competitors sprinkled all over Tulsa area....


Finally, the actual answer to your question - you make the windings very, very long.  About 80 feet long.....in a couple of bolt together pieces, so can be shipped on a truck.  Apply 4,160 vac (3 phase), or more, and "watch" it spin.



Next episode - wrap your mind around the extension cord for a motor like that....  Think in terms of kilometers....tens of kilometers....about an inch in diameter for the bundle of wires.

Next episode - wrap your mind around the extension cord for a motor like that....  Think in terms of kilometers....tens of kilometers....about an inch in diameter for the bundle of wires.

The capacitance, it's killing me!

But yes, thank you for providing an example of something that, if powered in part by your neighbor's solar panels or wind turbine, would save PSO money on otherwise necessary infrastructure improvements and a fairly significant amount of avoided loss from resistance. Over a third of all the power generated in this country is turned into waste heat in the wires, transformers, and other equipment before reaching the customer. That figure is reduced by quite a bit in places with significant distributed generation, since the power is being generated much closer to its point of use.

They had stories back  in the 1950's when nuclear power was coming of age, they said things like: "with nuclear power electric would be so cheap you would not even need a meter to measure your useage" or something  to that effect. The oppiset turned out to be true. I can tell ya this anything green will not be cheap- even recycling makes things more costly.

holy smile balls...seriously

... even recycling makes things more costly.

Nuclear generation is cheap. It's all the environmental, regulation and safety that makes it expensive.

Oh come on, cut the crap.  We all know government regulation and environmental compliance don’t affect the cost of goods or services.

Nuclear generation is cheap. It's all the environmental, regulation and safety that makes it expensive.

As to the transmission losses you mention - yes.  Huge!  If another set of wires the same size was added to every transmission line in the country we would not need any more new power plants for a long time (15% losses).  If double again, then 7% losses, and so on.  The problem is the cost of that wiring - even using aluminum, it is more cost effective to just build another power plant.  Amazing isn't it?

I dislike your solution because building new power plants can indeed reduce transmission losses by a lot, if they are sited properly. You can't really do that with coal, but it's perfectly reasonable to put natural gas and renewables close to cities where possible. Point is, it's cheaper to put solar panels on people's roof than it is to double the amount of wire in each HV transmission line, especially when you consider that skin effect means that you actually have to double the surface area, meaning you are more than doubling the volume of the wire. Unless they've started making tubular conductors?

The first part of that sentence is almost true - nuclear was sold as "it's gonna be so cheap..."

And building plants closer will still give 30% losses, just over a shorter distance - which is still a 30% loss.  There are power plants on the river, Coweta, Oologah....all fairly close to the city.  They still loose power through the wires.  It is cheaper to throw away 30% of the power than to put the size wire that would reduce the losses - MBA present/future value of money analysis'.

Point is, it's cheaper to put solar panels on people's roof than it is to double the amount of wire in each HV transmission line...

Solar/Wind is unreliable (to quote an OKC paper) power. Just because it's cloudy or calm, it doesn't make us use 30% less power. All the solar and wind plants do is let some traditional burners idle. The conventional producers still have to be capable of providing 24/7 capacity to every home and business.

That's what the naysayers say. Never mind that traditional power plants go offline at inopportune moments as well, sometimes leading to blackouts, sometimes only getting us sky-high spot rates. It's not as if there aren't other countries (and states, for that matter) that generate a significant percentage of their electricity with wind and solar. They somehow figure it out. We can, too.

Batteries to store that capacity are not really feasible at this point.

Utility companies are required by law to maintain certain reliability, and maintain access to capacity above need in case a plant goes down. Those laws are even more strict in recent years due to the new york thing (which was a wire issue, not a generating issue) When was the last time we had a true blackout in Oklahoma?

But yes, the gas turbines that utilities have already been building (thus we are already paying for) are really good at following the variations in solar and wind. Yet more reason why it's silly to charge fees to residential distributed generators at present.

There is also the loss in converting heat into rotational energy and then into electricity, which is fixed in any given plant barring swapping out the boiler or heat exchanger.

Wires strung from pole to pole are unreliable in tornado alley, and the two weeks we were without power in an ice storm, well...
Truth is, reliability hasnt been the deal-breaker, historically.

When I took some courses at TU a long time ago, a 40% efficiency of fossil fuel BTU to KW-hr of electricity at the generating station was really good.  A large steam plant could maybe get there.  I believe gas turbine plants used for peaking were significantly less efficient.  The high voltage transmission lines were reasonably efficient, local lower voltages not so much.

Sooooo....
The question is:
How many mpg would a typical 5 passenger gasoline (or maybe diesel or CNG) engine automobile need to get to equal the energy efficiency of an equal size electric only automobile charged at a residence with electricity from a fossil fuel electric plant?  We are only talking energy here, not dollars.  We are saving the world at any cost.  Account for such things as production and transportation of the electricity/fuel to the final distribution point of electricity in the home to charge the car battery and gasoline (diesel/CNG) at the gas station to fill the tank. Lots of stuff to consider.  State your assumptions.

I don't have the answer.  Some of you guys that have too much time on your hands can work on it.

I'm not aware of any gas turbine plants built by a utility in the last two decades, at least not anywhere around here.

AEP built one about a hundred miles from here less than 5 years ago.

I'm not aware of any gas turbine plants built by a utility in the last two decades, at least not anywhere around here.

Cal-Pine in the Mid-America Industrial Park about three or four miles north of the GRDA coal plant off 412.  Not sure if Cal-Pine still owns it or not, but it’s there and it’s been in the last 10-15 years.  More of a co-gen size than one that can light 1mm homes.

The resistance loss is not a flat amount. Resistance in a particular conductor (and thus the amount of energy dissipated as heat) is related to the amperage carried and the length of the wire. A foot of wire has a thousandth the resistance of a thousand feet of the same wire at the same voltage and amperage, thus a thousandth of the loss. (ignoring the effects of capacitance, anyway) Reducing the average transmission distance is the easiest way to reduce resistive losses, but higher voltage transmission helps by reducing the amperage carried by the wire, as does switching to HVDC, since DC isn't subject to the skin effect.

There is also the loss in converting heat into rotational energy and then into electricity, which is fixed in any given plant barring swapping out the boiler or heat exchanger.

That's what the naysayers say. Never mind that traditional power plants go offline at inopportune moments as well, sometimes leading to blackouts, sometimes only getting us sky-high spot rates. It's not as if there aren't other countries (and states, for that matter) that generate a significant percentage of their electricity with wind and solar. They somehow figure it out. We can, too.

Germany for example - their stated goal is 30% solar and wind by 2015.  Last time I looked was a couple years ago, and they were well along that path.  

Nathann, I know YOU understand this - it is for others;
The naysayers always make some lame BS nonsense about how solar and wind won't work in the dark or when the wind isn't blowing....  So what?  We don't depend on any single point supply as it is.  This state has both natural gas and coal.  Other states add nuke into the mix.  NONE of them is enough to do it all.  What wind and solar bring to the table are another VERY viable, VERY competitive, VERY cost effective tool to the toolbox.  It further distributes the generation capacity, so no one or two have to shoulder the load alone.   Anyone who has ever designed and tried to built anything in more that a handful of units has dealt with the issues of "single point of supply" for a critical item, or set of items.  If they have NOT dealt with it, they are either lying, incompetent, or haven't been burned by it yet, which is really the second - incompetent!

Nobody said that utility scale wind saves the utility money on transmission. I did say that distributed generation (IOW, rooftop solar and residential wind turbines) do that. The discussion is about how our betters have seen fit to allow electric utilities in Oklahoma to charge fees to residential customers with distributed generation, supposedly to offset cost to the utility. Costs that I am saying are actually negative in other states.

Costs that I am saying are actually negative in other states.

Are you saying in some states, the cost of transmission is negative?  Can you elaborate or give a cite?

Are you saying in some states, the cost of transmission is negative?  Can you elaborate or give a cite?

If A to B is congested and everybody at A buys solar panels and nobody at B does then it makes it worse.

If demand at B remains constant, there will be no increase in load on this hypothetical transmission line. If anyone at B buys panels, it reduces congestion, regardless of what people on the other end of the line do.

 My A and B have other things attached to them.

TMI

I think what you are looking for is in here.   (Maybe table 1.4?)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

The small percentage of electricity consumed in the transmission from the coal-fired power plant to the point of use, about 6 to 7 percent, is also taken into account.

Well you act like people in Germany are putting one wind farm every 10 miles that connects to one circuit or something.  Not how it works.  They are probably putting 400-600 MW of wind at one place and I'm not sure about solar.  I believe it would be 200-400 MW.  Sure.. Wind is distributed...  But look at texas.  it isn't in the middle of any major cities.


Texas just spent 6.9 Billion dollars in projects to effectively get that wind to the major cities in Texas.  They spend $300 per customer to connect wind.  It will probably be much higher when you count in the 10% ROI ERCOT is giving the companies that invested.  Since on the hottest days of the year the wind isn't blowing very hard you can only assume a small output from the wind farms.  Which means that you then have to still build another gas plant. So you aren't saving the money there.  Also the power from the wind farms costs the same as the most expensive unit on at the time.  I think you will find that the power prices in ERCOT haven't decreased recently.  Wind farms also do not provide the power grid with stability during a fault because they are asycnhronous.  Those big spinning motors have other uses too like making sure we have 60 hz.  The further you are away from a big unit the more likely you could beome out of sync and have to be tripped offline.


Wind does help the existing power plans run less though and produce less CO2. I am pro wind and solar, I'm just telling you how it is.  

If A to B is congested and everybody at A buys solar panels and nobody at B does then it makes it worse.  If everybody at B does and nobody at A does then it makes it better.  But if you back off the flow from A to B you might overload something elsewhere.  Its almost like moving water around.

But generally constraints around cities are form outside of the city to inside of the city. So anything inside will help.

As for the wind not blowing...well, look at that map and see the wide distribution of mills.  If the ones up north are still, the odds are VERY much that the ones down south will be turning.  It's an extremely widely distributed system.  Kind of like going from the north panhandle to Corpus or more south is on the order of El Paso to Houston -   +/- a few dozen miles.  And El Paso to Houston is further than from El Paso to Los Angeles...so the idea that the whole of Texas is gonna be still at the same time...well that's like expecting the entire west of CA, AZ, and NM to be still at the same time.  Probably not.

It's not widely distributed to try to keep something turning, it's widely distributed because those plants generate so little power that transmission losses are a huge factor. They are spending massive investments in infrastructure to try to get power from West Texas to places like Dallas because under existing wires you wouldn't have enough power left to charge a prius.

The power grid isn't just a couple of wires connected to a rechargeable battery. Maintaing the correct cycles, balancing all of the phases (there is more than just the two), and keeping enough available capacity to the right areas is a very complicated set of procedures requiring thousands of people working 24/7. It's not like pooling loose change to buy egg rolls at chills, you can't just throw a bunch of stuff out there and go "that should cover it"

OSAGE COUNTY, Okla. - A wind company in Kansas wants Osage Nation landowners to put wind turbines on their land off Highway 169. FOX23 spoke with residents about their concern.

The Flint Hills spanning from Kansas to Oklahoma is the largest tallgrass prairie in the United States and just one of six remaining in the entire world. According to coalition members, that unique land will be compromised if Tradewinds Energy uses the land to house 68 wind turbines..

“It’s going to demolish and demise the views Osage County is known for,” said coalition member Penny Bradford.

According to Bradford, Tradewinds has an agreement with the state of Kansas to avoid the Flint Hill in its own state.

“But yet it’s OK for them to come across the state line into Oklahoma and destroy ours and to me, that’s unacceptable,” Bradford said.

Many are now wondering how it got to this point.

“We have landowners that with their land use rights have reached agreements with energy companies,” Bradford said.

FOX23 learned that the agreements aren’t small. Some landowners earn up to one million dollars per year for the duration of the energy contract which is expect to span 20 years.

According to Bradford, six local landowners would reap those large benefits, but the energy produced from the turbines wouldn’t benefit Green Country.

“All of the energy produced here from this construction site will be sold to St. Louis, Mo.” Bradford said.

At the heart of the issue, it’s a land and preservation battle.

“This is our home and Osage County is known for its beauty and we would like to keep it that way,” Bradford said.

Bradford made it clear that the Osage Nation is not opposed to clean energy and wind turbines. They are just opposed to them being built at the suggested location.

I never said or implied they were doing it one mill at a time....they are using farms like we do here.

As for the wind not blowing...well, look at that map and see the wide distribution of mills.  If the ones up north are still, the odds are VERY much that the ones down south will be turning.  It's an extremely widely distributed system.  Kind of like going from the north panhandle to Corpus or more south is on the order of El Paso to Houston -   +/- a few dozen miles.  And El Paso to Houston is further than from El Paso to Los Angeles...so the idea that the whole of Texas is gonna be still at the same time...well that's like expecting the entire west of CA, AZ, and NM to be still at the same time.  Probably not.

Why would the price ever decrease??  That sounds a little bit like the same mindset that the RWRE has been trying to get people to assume in relation to "energy independence" - where we produce all our oil/gas here.  The unspoken implication that they want you to think is that somehow that will also create lower or even stable prices for energy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  (You don't believe that nonsense, do you??)

The big windmills have generators in them that do stabilize/synchronize 60Hz to the grid.  Distance does not affect frequency.  Otherwise they could NOT connect to the grid.  If anyone looks at the following link, move the cursor over different sections of the rotating windmill picture to see what is happening in each section.

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/how-does-wind-turbine-work

And for just a little bit of snarky... How is it that it is again?

1 mph difference between Tulsa county and Osage where Tradewinds from Kansas is installing 68 windmills?

Wind power is awesome, but sgrizzle is right, the transmission part is expensive and cumbersome to permit and build.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059995041

What percentage is AEP/PSO at now??

Not really sure what big wind farms have to do with fees charged to distributed generation customers.

Edison was right. Ac/dc is dangerous, complicated and will never work. We need to harness this new earthquake resource.

We can also put turbines on the toilets pipes of high rise buildings so when you flush it produces a little bit of energy.  

15%

But don't worry, waves your arms enough and eventually you'll be right.

Or something..

Oklahoma has a 15% renewable energy "goal".  Other states have requiements for wind energy but ours is just a goal.
http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=OK05R&re=0&ee=0 (http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=OK05R&re=0&ee=0)

Well the whole thing was "weasel words" because it wasn't binding in any way.  

So, YOUR company is at 15% wind generation, but you are arguing essentially that it is a non-viable approach.... sounds like someone is not acting the good "company" man....

Then the question arises, why would you stay with a company with which you have such a fundamental philosophical difference??

Never said it was non-viable as an energy source, just said it is not a replacement for base load generation in terms of grid reliability.

From the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)


Net metering has been available in Oklahoma since 1988 under Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) Order 326195. The OCC's rules require investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives under the commission's jurisdiction* to file net-metering tariffs for customer-owned renewable-energy systems and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) facilities up to 100 kilowatts (kW) in capacity. Net metering is available to all customer classes. There is no limit on the amount of aggregate net-metered capacity.

Utilities are not allowed to impose extra charges for customers signed up for net metering, nor are they allowed to require new liability insurance as a condition for interconnection. Utilities are also not required to purchase net excess generation (NEG) from customers. However, a customer may request that the utility purchase NEG. If the utility agrees, then NEG will be purchased at the utility's avoided-cost rate.
O.A.C. § 165:40-9

State:    Oklahoma
Incentive Type: Net Metering
Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies:    Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Geothermal Electric, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Small Hydroelectric
Applicable Sectors:    Commercial, Industrial, Residential, General Public/Consumer, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Fed. Government
Applicable Utilities:   Investor-owned utilities, regulated electric cooperatives
System Capacity Limit:   100 kW or 25,000 kWh/year (whichever is less)
Aggregate Capacity Limit:   No limit specified
Net Excess Generation:   Credited to customer's next bill or granted to utility monthly (varies by utility)
REC Ownership:   Not addressed
Meter Aggregation:   Not addressed

Cheer up- The Obama EPA just won it's case against Oklahoma power companies- expect out electric bills to go up 25%. I guess the EPA believes that C02 is a toxic polluting  gas. The power companies have to install scrubbers that cost half a billion dollars. Obama's policies really help the poor working class folks. C02 a toxic gas- indeed!

Just for you, rotting cabbage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083623/Two-French-wine-makers-suffocated-carbon-dioxide-fumes-grapes-treading.html

The gas is odourless and colourless, meaning that ventilation and carbon dioxide testing during the wine-making process can become life-saving. A concentration of just eight per cent is enough to kill a human being.

Cheer up- The Obama EPA just won it's case against Oklahoma power companies- expect out electric bills to go up 25%. I guess the EPA believes that C02 is a toxic polluting  gas. The power companies have to install scrubbers that cost half a billion dollars. Obama's policies really help the poor working class folks. C02 a toxic gas- indeed!

We can also put turbines on the toilets pipes of high rise buildings so when you flush it produces a little bit of energy.  

PSO is asking the Corporation Commission if it can add a new fee to customers who dont want to be switched to "Smart Meters"

This registers big on my BS meter:             my comments in green





Public Service Company of Oklahoma is installing 300,000 smart meters, but not everyone wants one.
There are people who believe the smart meters are unhealthy and transmit too much personal information - like how much energy you use and when.
PSO is asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission if it can allow customers to opt-out of getting the smart meters, but that could cost hundreds of dollars.

PSO is seeking an opt-out option for those customers to keep their current meter, but it would come at a cost, according to PSO spokesperson, Stan Whiteford.
“They don't even manufacture the old style meters in the United States anymore. They're all the new digital type of meter," he said.
...misleading; not every digital meter is a smart meter...

The new digital meters transmit information - like how much electricity you use - so there's no need for someone to physically read the meter.
But, those who wish to keep their current meter would still need it read manually. For that, there's a price tag.
"It would cost us more to maintain two systems and maintain the employees to go out and do the meter reading and stuff (like they do now and have been doing for about the past century), so that's why we would file for the cost recovery with that," Whiteford said.

In Texas, there are opt-out options. Customers who don't want a smart meter must write to their utility company and pay a one-time fee and a monthly fee.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas said the one-time fee costs averages $150 to $175 and the monthly fee is about $20 to $40.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission will decide whether PSO can offer that option, and how much the company could charge for an opt-out.
Right now, all PSO customers are paying a temporary $3 charge to install the smart meters, whether you want one or not.

This is all industry-standard at this point, just like having carts for our trash service which was also going to bring about the apocalypse.

PSO rolled them out in limited areas several years ago as well without demonic possession.

The new digital meters transmit information - like how much electricity you use - so there's no need for someone to physically read the meter.
But, those who wish to keep their current meter would still need it read manually. For that, there's a price tag.
"It would cost us more to maintain two systems and maintain the employees to go out and do the meter reading and stuff (like they do now and have been doing for about the past century), so that's why we would file for the cost recovery with that," Whiteford said.

My mother called the other day worried if they put a smart meter on her house they could throttle her electricity.  I had to explain to her whey they would not cut the air conditioning off on senior citizens.  ::)

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission will decide whether PSO can offer that option, and how much the company could charge for an opt-out.
Right now, all PSO customers are paying a temporary $3 charge to install the smart meters, whether you want one or not.

Pay an additional fee to not opt out and save PSO money.  Doesn't sound like it's going to save me anything.

The rates you pay are directly tied to PSOs cost of doing business. Once they reduce workforce they reduce costs.

I understand the requirement to meet peak demand.  I think they already charge me more than enough for my hangar at RVS to use only a few KWH per month.  328 KWH total for the last 12 months with a range of 8 to 47 KWH per month. There are a lot of single ended feeds that guarantee a power outage every time a squirrel misses a jump.  I have no sympathy for PSO.

Solar + Battery + buying any extra needed electricity at variable rates (i.e. charging overnight) could = win

Does PSO/AEP even offer variable rate pricing on electricity?

Does PSO/AEP even offer variable rate pricing on electricity?

Isn't this a moot point in Tulsa?

Does PSO/AEP even offer variable rate pricing on electricity?

Isn't this a moot point in Tulsa?

You should visit the new PSO PowerForward (SmartGrid) display at Mayfest this year. A definitive answer inside you will find.

I can't believe you suckers pay for electricity.

I run a cord to my neighbor. They have been on vacation forever.

If you all need to charge up your electronic devices, come on over.

You could have just said, "yes."   Then pointed me at the tariff.

https://www.psoklahoma.com/global/utilities/lib/docs/ratesandtariffs/Oklahoma/ResidentialService_05_04_2015.pdf


With those numbers, it would be tough to make it pay to go to the advanced metering and make it pay off....

On-Peak Season
$ 0.0171 (off peak cost) vs  $0.02891 (anytime cost for first 1350 kWh)   

Off peak season
Same rates for everyone

That may take forever to cost justify.

During the summer months, according to that sheet, an average household power (say 2000kwh) pays $63.43 in usage. A house using variable peak pricing (only drawing 10pm-10am) would pay $26.60 for same usage. It's hard to justify, but largely because electric is already pretty cheap in Oklahoma.