Zombie Lie Moves Into The Tennessee Valley, Results In Unnecessary Fee

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), in an action that seems antithetical to its entire mission, imposed a grid-access fee on its customers, aimed specifically at solar users because of the zombie lie of the cost-shift.

  • For a utility whose whole existence is owed to the idea that poor, rural people deserve low-cost electricity, the TVA’s grid-access fee seems to be the height of hypocrisy.
  • The TVA servers around 9 million people across seven states.
  • zombie lie

    The TVA USED to be about electricity for all. Now it’s about “electricity, but we’re going to charge you a random grid-access fee for it.”

    SolarWakeup’s View:  This flippin’ zombie lie is back again, this week popping its head up from the depths of hell in the Tennessee Valley.

    The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), for those who don’t know, was established as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program, in part to bring electricity to rural areas of seven states. These areas weren’t served before because it was considered too expensive for traditional utilities to string wires to many of these areas off the beaten path.

    It revolutionized the United States and gave rise the New South. But now, the TVA is relying on the zombie lie of the “cost shift” to penalize anyone on their grid that wants to install solar with a usurious “grid-access fee.”

    [wds id=”3″]

    TVA President Bill Johnson gave away the game when he started talking about how “more able” people are able to afford self-generation technologies like solar. As the Chattanooga Times Free Press quotes Johnson:

    “Some consumers, particularly the more able ones, can invest some solar panels or other resources, but they still rely on the valley-wide transmission system for backup power,” Johnson said. “The result is how we bill for electricity can be out of sync with the actual costs of getting electricity to some consumers.”

    How many times do we have to kill this damn lie about how solar consumers supposedly “shift” costs on to non-solar users? (Forever, Frank, you idiot – that’s the whole point of zombies…..)

    The argument goes like this: Retail-rate net metering, a program under which solar customers are reimbursed for the excess electricity they produce, pushes extra costs on to non-solar customers because solar customers aren’t paying for grid upkeep.

    What the utilities don’t want you to notice, of course, is that solar customers also relieve congestion on the grid during peak production times, which saves strain on the transmission and distribution lines. So while they may not be paying for upkeep directly, solar production saves wear and tear, which ultimately saves the utility money in the form of repair costs.

    You’re welcome.

    I should note here that while there is a minor cost-shift, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates the shift only happens when a state passes the 10% mark for solar-electricity generation. And I should also note that even at more than 10%, the shift is so small you’d need the Berkeley Lab’s $27 million electron microscope to see it.

    As it always is, this maneuver is nothing more than a power and money grab by a rapacious utility – and it looks like the zombie lie going to succeed (again) in eating into the savings solar consumers should have from installing their systems.

    More:

    TVA adopting grid access fee in move to impose more fixed costs on power bills

    Net Metering Is NOT A Subsidy, No Matter How Loudly Duke Energy Says It

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened: Duke Energy penned an opinion piece for The State boldly arguing the cost-shift, which I have to admit is a gutsy move.

  • It’s particularly gutsy since, as I’ve written so many times my fingers can type it without any guidance from my brain, THE COST SHIFT ARGUMENT IS A LIE.
  • To make my life easier later in this piece, I’ll just note here that the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) says South Carolina receives 0.21% of its electricity from solar sources, a fact that, as always, is essential when trying to kill the zombie lie of the cost shift.
  • Duke Energy

    Only the South Carolina legislature stands between Duke Energy’s zombie “cost-shift” lie and its solar consumers.

    SolarWakeup’s View:  The entire opinion pieced penned by Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, president of Duke Energy South Carolina, is a brazenly brilliant piece of anti-solar propaganda wrapped up in a concern-troll blanket and foisted on the poor readers of The State, South Carolina’s statewide newspaper. It is one of the first times I’ve seen a utility executive himself go on record banging the drum for the zombie lie of the cost shift.

    [wds id=”3″]

    As I have shouted into the abyss so many times I can’t even count them all, the cost-shift is complete nonsense. I should have this explanation as a macro so I don’t have to type it every time. Let’s review:

    The argument goes like this: Retail-rate net metering, a program under which solar customers are reimbursed for the excess electricity they produce, pushes extra costs on to non-solar customers because solar customers aren’t paying for grid upkeep.

    What the utilities don’t want you to notice, of course, is that solar customers also relieve congestion on the grid during peak production times, which saves strain on the transmission and distribution lines. So while they may not be paying for upkeep directly, solar production saves wear and tear, which ultimately saves the utility money in the form of repair costs.

    You’re welcome.

    I should note here that while there is a minor cost-shift, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates the shift only happens when a state passes the 10% mark for solar-electricity generation. And I should also note that even at more than 10%, the shift is so small you’d need the Berkeley Lab’s $27 million electron microscope to see it.

    The entire idiotic thing is based on the (false) portrayal of net metering as a subsidy, which it is not. what net metering is is a free-market solution to the “problem” of solar array overproduction. In other words, if I produce a product, the utility should have to pay me fair market price (retail rate) for it. That’s the whole basis of capitalism, after all – Invisible Hand and all that (yeah, I’ve read Adam Smith).

    And the other thing Duke Energy doesn’t want you to notice is that they are a state-sponsored monopoly that receives actual subsidies guaranteed by the state, so…you know…that’s a thing that is happening, too.

    I’ll give Ghartey-Tagoe one thing: He’s not wrong when he says Duke Energy isn’t anti-solar. Turns out, they’re very much pro-solar – as long as they are the ones that are producing it.

    More:

    Why should the rest of us pay to subsidize people who choose rooftop solar power?

    South Carolina Tries, Tries Again To Reach Solar Compromise

    Are We Harping On South Carolina Net Metering? Yes, Because YOU Are

    Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill

    South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal

    South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack

    Zombie Lie Returns; Time To Kill It Again

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened: This fella right here – Lucas Davis,an Associate Professor of Economic Analysis and Policy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley – trotted out the zombie lie about the solar-customer cost shift again on something called “The Energy Institute at Haas” blog.

    • If he would have picked up the phone and called down to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, they could have cautioned him against spreading this garbage.
    • How many times to we have to debunk this before reputable people stop trafficking in this idiocy?
    • I haven’t been able to figure out yet who funds the Haas School, but whoever it is needs to get a better handle on what its people are putting out (unless the goal is to misinform the public on a host of public policy issues – more on that in a second).

    zombie

    SolarWakeup’s View:  (Me, to Yann): “Didn’t I just write this story?”

    [Yann to me]: “No.”

    [Me to Yann]: “Are you sure? This feels so familiar.”

    [Yann to me]: “Look, it’s a zombie lie story, so yeah, you’ve written it before. But this is a different person telling the zombie lie – and it’s not even a utility? He’s an associate professor and everything.”

    [Me to Yann]: (Look of quiet desperation) OK. I’ll write it. This is going to be what’s engraved on my tombstone, isn’t it? ‘Frank Andorka, Killed By The Zombie Lie’

    [Yann to me]: (Grin)

    [wds id=”3″]

    Sadly, this is an article I could probably write in my sleep. Another pinhead – this time Lucas Davis, an associate professor of economic analysis and policy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley – took to The Energy Blog At Hass to peddle the notion that when solar customers join the electricity-production mix, they shift costs to non-solar users. In his example, California non-solar ratepayers are paying $65 more per year to “subsidize” solar rate payers, who are compensated for their extra electricity by the utilities.

    It’s the zombie lie concerning “cost-shifting” again, which, as I have shouted into the abyss so many times I can’t even count them all, is complete nonsense. I should have this explanation as a macro so I don’t have to type it every time. As it is, I’m just going to cut and paste it from my story on Kentucky 12 days ago. If you’re bored reading it, maybe tell Davis and his ilk to stop arguing lies. Let’s review:

    The argument goes like this: Retail-rate net metering, a program under which solar customers are reimbursed for the excess electricity they produce, pushes extra costs on to non-solar customers because solar customers aren’t paying for grid upkeep.

    What the utilities don’t want you to notice, of course, is that solar customers also relieve congestion on the grid during peak production times, which saves strain on the transmission and distribution lines. So while they may not be paying for upkeep directly, solar production saves wear and tear, which ultimately saves the utility money in the form of repair costs.

    You’re welcome.

    I should note here that while there is a minor cost-shift, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates the shift only happens when a state passes the 10% mark for solar-electricity generation. And I should also note that even at more than 10%, the shift is so small you’d need the Berkeley Lab’s $27 million electron microscope to see it.

    I can’t tell for sure, but from this post and the rest of the posts on Haas School’s blog on energy, it seems like they have an agenda, namely to turn back the clock to the 19th century when all electricity was produced from fossil fuels.

    I’m getting so tired of fighting this zombie lie – does anyone have a suggestion about how I can kill it for good? I thank you, and my dog thanks you.

    More:

    Why Am I Paying $65/year for Your Solar Panels? (The Energy Institute Blog at Haas) [Me, at my computer screen while I’m typing this]: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YOU’RE NOT, YOU LYING LIAR! (breathes deeply)

    Zombie Lie Informs Kentucky’s Attempt To Kill Its Solar Industry

    South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack [Me]: I’m beginning to feel like MY soul is under attack.

    Bonus:

    Feast your eyes on this electron microscope. It’s amazing what $27 million will buy.