Green Power Bill [LAW'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Hans

I'm putting this in slot seven.

[Hans-im-Glück]

The aim of my proposal will be to make it worthwhile when private households investing in alternative energies.

This law would make it easier, for example to make on your house a solar system or for a farmer to build a wind power plant on unused land. With this Bill, you have security for the planning of such a project.

[Fritz]

I don't think I'm quite understanding this.  So, when a private household invests in alternative energy, the local power company has to pay for it?

[k-onmmunist]

I have to admit, I'm quite befuddled too.

[Badger]

I have to admit, I'm quite befuddled too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Under what authority can the Federal Gov't force someone to buy a private product of any kind?

I like the goal but a blind mandate on this is in my opinion too far. If they are to be paid market rates for power then the power companies would be willing to buy the power anyway and would have no reason not to other then there being too much power on the grid which I don't think would be an issue.

Theoretically if you were going to engage in this project people would go to the power company and find out what deal they would offer before spending any money on putting the production capacity in place. Anybody who dives in without "security" of knowing shouldn't be in my opinion putting one of these in. 

[Hans-im-Glück]

I will try to reduce the confusion.

The aim of the Act is to promote energy alternatives and not for big energy companies.  The goal is that the general public benefits directly.

There is a large potential for alternative energies in the private households or for small farmers. There are already people they have at home Solar energy, farmers who produce biomass energy, small wind turbines on private land or energy from Hydroelectricity. But this can be more like today.

If you get a fair price be guaranteed for the energy you produce and not need for your own, then many more people build a this systems to produce Alternative Energy. In Atlasia there are so many roofs that could be used for solar energy and also a lot of places where you could set up wind turbines.

Of course we could finance such a thing even on taxes, but a direct promotion with public money would have disadvantages as well.

1. If you get the money at once to build such a system, there is no great incentive for a efficient maintenance of the plant. Not so with a guaranteed electricity price, for example, works only when the solar or wind power system can benefit you
2. It is also useful for the environment not to be financed through taxes.  Taxes pay all, no matter how much energy they consume. With a guaranteed price of the electricity will they who consume a lot of energy more exposed, because the power companies give the cost to the consumer.

The law is not inventive to me. There are similar laws in some states in Germany and in several countries in Europe.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will try to reduce the confusion.

The aim of the Act is to promote energy alternatives and not for big energy companies.  The goal is that the general public benefits directly.

There is a large potential for alternative energies in the private households or for small farmers. There are already people they have at home Solar energy, farmers who produce biomass energy, small wind turbines on private land or energy from Hydroelectricity. But this can be more like today.

If you get a fair price be guaranteed for the energy you produce and not need for your own, then many more people build a this systems to produce Alternative Energy. In Atlasia there are so many roofs that could be used for solar energy and also a lot of places where you could set up wind turbines.

Of course we could finance such a thing even on taxes, but a direct promotion with public money would have disadvantages as well.

1. If you get the money at once to build such a system, there is no great incentive for a efficient maintenance of the plant. Not so with a guaranteed electricity price, for example, works only when the solar or wind power system can benefit you
2. It is also useful for the environment not to be financed through taxes.  Taxes pay all, no matter how much energy they consume. With a guaranteed price of the electricity will they who consume a lot of energy more exposed, because the power companies give the cost to the consumer.

The law is not inventive to me. There are similar laws in some states in Germany and in several countries in Europe.

I ask again why would this be necessary. If the Power Companies are to offer people market rates why aren't they doing it already (I beleive they are) so why should we force power companies to do something they are already doing? If a company isn't doing it, there would be some kind of reason such as financial problems or what not that this unfunded mandate would make worse. I still don't see the need.

[Badger]

I will try to reduce the confusion.

The aim of the Act is to promote energy alternatives and not for big energy companies.  The goal is that the general public benefits directly.

There is a large potential for alternative energies in the private households or for small farmers. There are already people they have at home Solar energy, farmers who produce biomass energy, small wind turbines on private land or energy from Hydroelectricity. But this can be more like today.

If you get a fair price be guaranteed for the energy you produce and not need for your own, then many more people build a this systems to produce Alternative Energy. In Atlasia there are so many roofs that could be used for solar energy and also a lot of places where you could set up wind turbines.

Of course we could finance such a thing even on taxes, but a direct promotion with public money would have disadvantages as well.

1. If you get the money at once to build such a system, there is no great incentive for a efficient maintenance of the plant. Not so with a guaranteed electricity price, for example, works only when the solar or wind power system can benefit you
2. It is also useful for the environment not to be financed through taxes.  Taxes pay all, no matter how much energy they consume. With a guaranteed price of the electricity will they who consume a lot of energy more exposed, because the power companies give the cost to the consumer.

The law is not inventive to me. There are similar laws in some states in Germany and in several countries in Europe.

OK, I think I'm starting to understand this. So private individuals who use green energy sources on their land, such as solar or wind, who produce more energy than their household requires can sell the excess power to the public utility at 90% of the established utility rate up to a maximum of $150k/year?

IF that's the case, I think I like this. I still have some questions about the technical and economic logistics of how the excess power made by small producers being transferred into the power grid. If at all possible, Hans, would you be able to find a link to some news/journal article (in English please) about how such systems or laws work in Europe? That may be very helpful.

IF such logistical issues can be addressed, this idea has potential. I like the idea of giving such direct financial incentives to individual households to create green energy above and beyond simply trimming their own utility bills. Such widespread diversification and individual ownership of production means is a really appealing bit of enviro-capitalism. The increased production of energy would benefit consumers as the laws of supply and demand dictate the increased energy supply would reduce utility costs. Assuming the logistical concerns I mentioned aren't prohibitively expensive, utilities would win out too as they would purchase such energy at a 10% discount from their charging rate (note to Yank: Energy utilities are heavily regulated and largely local/regional monopolies, so there isn't a real "free market" price for energy either produced or sold by such utilities).

Encouraging such widespread ownership kinda reminds me of Winston's bill lowering capital gains taxes on most ESOPs; it encourages everyone to be a direct participant in---and beneficiary of---the market economy.

Again, Hans, an article showing how such laws work in RL would be helpful, but I'm tentatively supportive at this point.

[Hans-im-Glück]

OK, I think I'm starting to understand this. So private individuals who use green energy sources on their land, such as solar or wind, who produce more energy than their household requires can sell the excess power to the public utility at 90% of the established utility rate up to a maximum of $150k/year?

Yes, this is what I mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't so easy. i will search for an English side, but I know only sides they are in German. In Germany it isn't exactly 90%. This I wrote only because it is easier than the German law. In Germany the "Bundesnetzagentur" (That's the name of the Government Office for electricity) calculate every year the price that the power companies must pay for  alternative energy from private household's. The price isn't the same (in Germany), there gives different prices for bigger and smaller producers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing we need for this is a sealed electric meter, who works normal for the electricity the consumer needs and count only 90% when the "consumer" produce energy. In the end will be settled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will do my best

If the Yank is afraid that an energy company will be penalized, then we can create a compensation, but I think we don't need this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind this bill, I am just worried about some of the technical aspects of it. Would a company be able to stop buyinh electricity from people if it is in surplus or there is too much on the grid?

[Badger]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind this bill, I am just worried about some of the technical aspects of it. Would a company be able to stop buyinh electricity from people if it is in surplus or there is too much on the grid?

Reasonable concerns. I hadn't thought about the "too much power" issue. I suppose that, even after accounting for the estimated private producers energy contributions to the grid, if private production is greater than anticipated the utility could reduce energy production at its own power plants. But I emphasize 'suppose' as I know very little about the details of managing a public utility's power supply.

Come to think of it, could this work in reverse where there is less power supplied than expected by private producers, resulting in power shortages? The more I think about this I could see issues with the public utility responsible for providing power to a region having to manage production by factoring in the estimated production of hundreds or thousands of private producers.

A utility I assume, can regulate power production from it's multiple power plants it directly or indirectly controls. While factors can effect production targets (e.g. price swings in natural resources, labor disputes, natural disasters, etc.), the utility essentially has control over the means of production to react to these changed circumstances. Obviously the utility can't plan nearly as well for the performance (or lack thereof) for hundreds or thousands of independent small energy producers.

Again, any news articles to see if and how these issues have been dealt with in RL would be very helpful indeed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind this bill, I am just worried about some of the technical aspects of it. Would a company be able to stop buyinh electricity from people if it is in surplus or there is too much on the grid?

Reasonable concerns. I hadn't thought about the "too much power" issue. I suppose that, even after accounting for the estimated private producers energy contributions to the grid, if private production is greater than anticipated the utility could reduce energy production at its own power plants. But I emphasize 'suppose' as I know very little about the details of managing a public utility's power supply.

Come to think of it, could this work in reverse where there is less power supplied than expected by private producers, resulting in power shortages? The more I think about this I could see issues with the public utility responsible for providing power to a region having to manage production by factoring in the estimated production of hundreds or thousands of private producers.

A utility I assume, can regulate power production from it's multiple power plants it directly or indirectly controls. While factors can effect production targets (e.g. price swings in natural resources, labor disputes, natural disasters, etc.), the utility essentially has control over the means of production to react to these changed circumstances. Obviously the utility can't plan nearly as well for the performance (or lack thereof) for hundreds or thousands of independent small energy producers.

Again, any news articles to see if and how these issues have been dealt with in RL would be very helpful indeed.

Well I am no expert but I think that Power companies can shut off the supply from individual producers when necessary or would create  a system to be able to do that, however under this bill, they would still have to be paid for uneeded electicity.

[Badger]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind this bill, I am just worried about some of the technical aspects of it. Would a company be able to stop buyinh electricity from people if it is in surplus or there is too much on the grid?

Reasonable concerns. I hadn't thought about the "too much power" issue. I suppose that, even after accounting for the estimated private producers energy contributions to the grid, if private production is greater than anticipated the utility could reduce energy production at its own power plants. But I emphasize 'suppose' as I know very little about the details of managing a public utility's power supply.

Come to think of it, could this work in reverse where there is less power supplied than expected by private producers, resulting in power shortages? The more I think about this I could see issues with the public utility responsible for providing power to a region having to manage production by factoring in the estimated production of hundreds or thousands of private producers.

A utility I assume, can regulate power production from it's multiple power plants it directly or indirectly controls. While factors can effect production targets (e.g. price swings in natural resources, labor disputes, natural disasters, etc.), the utility essentially has control over the means of production to react to these changed circumstances. Obviously the utility can't plan nearly as well for the performance (or lack thereof) for hundreds or thousands of independent small energy producers.

Again, any news articles to see if and how these issues have been dealt with in RL would be very helpful indeed.

Well I am no expert but I think that Power companies can shut off the supply from individual producers when necessary or would create  a system to be able to do that, however under this bill, they would still have to be paid for uneeded electicity.

Or why not decrease production from the utility's power plants? I'm guessing those several plants may be easier to directly control rather than the meters for hundreds or thousands of individual power producers. Besides, as long as the purchase rate of 90% of set rate allows the utility to still make a profit (or at least break even) reselling the power to consumers, that margin plus the reduced costs of production should still allow the utility to come out ahead.

[Fritz]

I will be voting in favor of this.

[Bacon King]

With no debate in a good while, this bill is now at a final vote. Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Fritz]

Aye

[bgwah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMQVCSZWo0Q&feature=related

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[k-onmmunist]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay, I still feel ill at ease about portions of this.

[Bacon King]

With six ayes and one nay, this bill has the votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Mint]

Nay, I still feel ill at ease about portions of this.