Now that SRP has essentially killed solar through regulations, let us look at how they did it and what concessions were made. SRP always used the $50/month charge for new solar users to remove incentive for solar savings. How those numbers could make sense (they don’t) is beyond me, no way that a few kW of solar can cost SRP infrastructure $600/year. SRP board did however give a 20 year grandfather instead of 10 on existing customers though there may be a distinction for leased systems and increased the demand charge calculation to 30 minutes from 15, a small but significant change. Not to forget that SolarCity has promised a lawsuit against the new charge, so much more to come.

Yann

News

 

Opinions:

Have a great day!
Yann


These are the top 10 most read solar articles by your peers this week!

News

 

The Top 10 is ranked by the number of SolarWakeup.com readers that clicked on the news article during the previous week. It is the poll of the most relevant solar news of the week as judged by your colleagues and competitors.

Have a great day!
Yann


A municipal utility should work for its ratepayers who also happen to be shareholders which makes the news out of SRP in Arizona all the more interesting. With so much heat on solar in Arizona and given how dirty it has been, it makes me wonder who got to the leadership at SRP. So now that a $50/month solar charge is getting implemented in SRP, let the investigative reporters do some digging into who really wanted to send the message to the solar industry. So many munis have been leaders on implementing solar with innovative structures, don’t expect SRP to be the standard going forward and don’t let it stand!

Yann

News

 

Opinions:

Have a great day!
Yann


Before you send me your email being upset about today’s leading story, hear me out. First off, not everyone likes solar. It is getting way too cost effective and has no fuel cost volatility that can be traded around. Folks like the Koch brothers just can’t handle that so what do they do? They help fund the misguided few to setup a cleverly named 501(c)(4) non-profit. In this case, they are paying David Williams to run the ‘Taxpayers Protection Alliance’ $120,000 and house him in the National Taxpayer Union building in Virginia. Well here is my offer to David Williams, come talk to me or many others in solar about the facts, because you have fallen off your rocker.

Yann

News

 

Opinions:

Have a great day!
Yann