Pepco -- correction (dcforsolar)

[Judy Kosovich]

The main purpose of this message is to correct a mistake I made with respect to bill stabilization.  I relied on a press release that was misleading.

 

I agree with Marty Silber that we need dialog between the solar/renewable advocates and the climate protection advocates.  Most of us probably consider ourselves to be in both camps, but have chosen one or the other issue to focus on.  Each camp is in danger of proposing things which, in the aggregate, would be a good policy, but as to particulars, may partially conflict.  [In the realm of "complexity," this is very common.  It is not possible to determine the very best solution to a complex problem, and any number of solutions are quite good.  E.g., no computer has ever been able to figure out the perfect game of chess.] 

 

I spoke to Cliff Majersik, head of Cool Capital Challenge" this morning.  It turns out that the press release I read and quoted (provided by the Public Service Commission of DC) as to the Bill Stabilization Adjustment was unclear in 2 respects.  1) The policy of bill stabilization would apply in the aggregate, e.g., the DC area.  I mistakenly had the impression that it applied to individual ratepayers/homeowners.  Thus, a solar home would not be penalized for low electric bills.  On the other hand, very widespread use of solar (to the extent that it has a discernable impact on electricity usage), with bill stabilization, would not save as much money as widespread use of solar in the absence of bill stabilization.  The advantage of bill stabilization is that Pepco would not have reason to resist widespread use of solar.  2) The policy is not based on a particular "Commission-approved level" that provides a step-change when you reach a particular level.  According to Cliff, it is a continuous curve that keeps Pepco's profits constant as electricity usage is reduced so that Pepco will favor, or at least not oppose, conservation.  The official language is what has worked in CA and other states.  I have not read the official language.

 

Judy

[Marty Silber]

 

Yes. Very good points.

 

www.stellacapitalllc.com
Cell: 571-236-5396
Fax: 202-347-2215

[Jigar Shah]

My only point here is that please don’t give PEPCO an inch until they commit in ACTION (not soft promises) to fully implement the 30 MWs of solar required by the DC RPS.  If you give them support on this issue based on verbal promises you will lose your leverage on other issues.

 

The concept of a “smart grid” infrastructure with advanced metering, demand side management, decoupling, solar, etc has to be done as a package.  Otherwise, Pepco will do some parts and not do other parts.  Read this link:

 

http://www.appanet.org/files/Word/PEPCOHOLDINGSBodmer.doc

 

Jigar

 

---

[Marty Silber]

 

I don't think we want Pepco to be responsible for the 30 MWs of solar. Their Blueblue for DC is less than to be desired.

 

We need to put in the right policy (long term contracts for RECs, incentives - residential grant program), fix net metering, and programs into place. 

 

[Shelagh Bocoum]

For our various letters to Pepco opposing the two cent fee, I think it would be a good idea to have a range of complexity.  I volunteer to write a "simple" letter because I do not have the technical background that many of you have.  Others can draw from their store of knowledge in this field to write more technical arguments, complete with charts and graphs and what-have-you.

 

However, I think there are several others on this list like me, who are non-specialists.  For those of you who are more expert in this field, please keep us in mind and provide some laymen's explanation when appropriate.  When attaching a long document, it would be helpful for you to cut and paste key paragraphs into the text of your email, followed or preceded by an explanation in plain English.

 

I skimmed the document that Jigar linked, and I couldn't figure out what part he was referring to.  But I did notice in the "Segment by Segment Analysis" a paragraph which states

 

Potomac [PEPCO] is allowed to recover the costs associated with the acquisition of the SOS [standard offer service] supply obtained pursuant to a competitive bid procedure, plus charges that recover administrative costs including a $0.00248 per kWH margin.

 

Does this have to do with solar or net metering?  If someone can explain what this paragraph means, I would appreciate it. Is this where we are getting the two cent per KWH fee, or is this something else entirely?  Because this is two-tenths of a cent, not two cents.

 

It would be helpful (but not essential) to have some documentation of the two cent charge that prompted last week's meeting, if someone can find it.

 

Shelagh

[Colin Murchie]

Shelagh - that charge is entirely unrelated; the citation you need is as in Rhone's letter - namely to Pepco's Net Metering Standard Contract, and the language from there:

 

For customers taking Standard Offer Service, all electricity supplied to the customers load by the Company or by the Customer’s own generation during the Billing Month will be billed for Transmission and Distribution charges.

 

Meaning that Pepco proposes to charge you for transmitting and dsitributing energy that in fact traveled only as far as from the roof to your toaster.

 

 

Colin Murchie

Manager, Regulatory Affairs

 

office:  (443) 909-7200

mobile:  (202) 321-8991

fax:     (443) 909-7150

12500 Baltimore Ave

Beltsville, MD 20705

www.sunedison.com

 

Confidentiality Statement:  The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting the material from any computer.  Thank you.

 

 

[Marty Silber]

On 7/13/07, Michael Philips <michael....@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Judy,

You sent a slight shockwave through the community today with your original email. I'm glad things are more clear to you now. The solar/renewable advocates and the climate protection advocates are essentially the same people, at least I hope so, along with the energy-efficiency advocates. However, part of your latest message is still a bit misleading.  When you say widespread use of solar would not save as much money under the current regulatory regime as under a decoupled regulatory regime, that's not really true. Under both regulatory approaches, if Pepco does not receive enough revenue to cover its legitimate costs of operating and maintaining the distribution system, it can get a rate increase. Under decoupling, this "true-up" happens quckly, while under the current regime Pepco would have to wait for a formal rate hearing, which is about avery 5 years. During that lag time between your installation of your PV system and the formal rate increase, you would have an advantage. But in the long run, there would be no difference.

 

Regard,

 

Michael Philips

Politics & Prose Climate Action Project

301-891-1010

 

P.S. BTW, that was me who said we have lower rates because of high coal use. As you move South from the NE, average retail rates keep dropping until you get to the DC-MD-VA area. That's because the proportion of electricity generated by coal plants increases as you move South. So while the PJM grid is about 53% coal, we're at the Southern end of that grid and depend on coal for 75% of our electricity. All the more reason for serious investments in energy efficiency and renewables.

 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Judy Kosovich < judy.k...@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 13, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: [dcforsolar] Pepco -- correction (dcforsolar)
To: dcfor...@googlegroups.com
Cc: cl...@imt.org

 

The main purpose of this message is to correct a mistake I made with respect to bill stabilization.  I relied on a press release that was misleading.

 

I agree with Marty Silber that we need dialog between the solar/renewable advocates and the climate protection advocates.  Most of us probably consider ourselves to be in both camps, but have chosen one or the other issue to focus on.  Each camp is in danger of proposing things which, in the aggregate, would be a good policy, but as to particulars, may partially conflict.  [In the realm of "complexity," this is very common.  It is not possible to determine the very best solution to a complex problem, and any number of solutions are quite good.  E.g., no computer has ever been able to figure out the perfect game of chess.] 

 

I spoke to Cliff Majersik, head of Cool Capital Challenge" this morning.  It turns out that the press release I read and quoted (provided by the Public Service Commission of DC) as to the Bill Stabilization Adjustment was unclear in 2 respects.  1) The policy of bill stabilization would apply in the aggregate, e.g., the DC area.  I mistakenly had the impression that it applied to individual ratepayers/homeowners.  Thus, a solar home would not be penalized for low electric bills.  On the other hand, very widespread use of solar (to the extent that it has a discernable impact on electricity usage), with bill stabilization, would not save as much money as widespread use of solar in the absence of bill stabilization.  The advantage of bill stabilization is that Pepco would not have reason to resist widespread use of solar.  2) The policy is not based on a particular "Commission-approved level" that provides a step-change when you reach a particular level.  According to Cliff, it is a continuous curve that keeps Pepco's profits constant as electricity usage is reduced so that Pepco will favor, or at least not oppose, conservation.  The official language is what has worked in CA and other states.  I have not read the official language.

 

Judy

www.stellacapitalllc.com
Cell: 571-236-5396
Fax: 202-347-2215

--
Marty Silber
Director of Operations, Stella Capital LLC

[Solar...@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/13/07 1:07:33 PM, js...@sunedison.com writes:

My only point here is that please don’t give PEPCO an inch until they commit in ACTION (not soft promises) to fully implement the 30 MWs of solar required by the DC RPS.  If you give them support on this issue based on verbal promises you will lose your leverage on other issues.

I agree with Jigar 1000% -- Scott


**************************************
Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

[Peter Lowenthal]

I DON'T THINK THIS IS REFERING TO NET METERING IT THE WHOLE ENCILADA. THATS PEPCOS PROFIT, I THINK.

PETER