La lecture à portée de main
Description
Informations
Publié par | Ebbi |
Nombre de lectures | 24 |
Langue | Español |
Extrait
-----Original Message-----
From: woodland@airadv.net [mailto:woodland@airadv.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:23 PM
To: MPSC EFILE CASES
Subject: Case U-15316 net metering public comment
Public comment on Case U‐15316 Net Metering
From: Brion Dickens Pigeon, MI
Feb. 27 2008
The definition of Net Metering found on the State of Michigan web site, Mi.Gov reads as follows:
Net metering is an accounting mechanism whereby retail electric utility customers who
generate a portion or all of their own retail electricity are billed for generation by their utility for ONLY
their NET consumption during each billing period.
The definition of net metering world wide through a Google search is:
A billing process for self generation where the customer pays the net amount each month for
power consumed/produced on site using ONE BI‐directional meter that automatically calculates the
power bought minus the power sold.
We do not have this in Michigan right now. The issue I have is that my utility, falsely lead me to believe,
that that was what Michigan was going to have and what said utility was going to offer me before the
installation of my 10kw turbine. On this utilities website they “hype” offering net metering which is miss
leading. Using the above definitions of net metering the customer that wants to invest in a self
generation system is lead to believe that MI has net metering and the power their system produces will
be equal in value to the power bought, which is not the case. If any other industry offered a product or
service that claims to be something it isn’t and intern “misleads” the customer there are legal
ramifications of that action. However, in this case Michigan Utilities are misleading the public by
claiming to offer something that they in reality do not.
The new proposal by PSC staff is closer to what net metering truly is and is close to what dozens of other
progressive states and utilities have chose to adopt in an attempt to move their States economies
forward. These systems are far too costly in Michigan to warrant “everyone” wanting them. Those of us
that want to be energy independent need the “dollar for dollar” energy cost exchange to make the
systems profitable.
Case in point with my system:
After battling my utility to except the UL 1741 rating (as the IEEE 1547 is only a recommendation and
NOT an enforceable standard), taking them to court to receive my interconnection documents, putting up with 4 attempts to be metered correctly using THREE meters where only ONE is warranted, and have
this utility produce a bill for $977.00 while net metering then, having this utility instruct me NOT to pay
it, and then have this utility turn me in to the credit reporting bureau, I feel that I have “bent over
backwards” in tolerating the incompetence that exits in their company. I have been told by this utility
that “sometimes it is not good to be first” and that “things take time to get right”. This utility has over 2
million customers and less than 5 currently ATTEMPTING to net meter. I am also fully aware of the
“perceived need” for my utility to use THREE meters for net metering.
1) They need a way to charge me the maximum amount for the distribution costs of selling
them power.
2) They have a legal wording that states “no meter is allowed to spin backwards”.
The first could be addressed by a $5.00/month surcharge (if needed) and the second could be a
change to the wording that allows for a meter to spin backwards in a net metering scenario.
The failure to do the above demonstrates how “difficult” my utility attempts to make
“everything”
My first attempts to net meter resulted in “non functional meters” being installed (3 total). This was
admitted by the utility that the meters did not work. When I first applied for interconnection I was told
that no metering changes would occur. The APPROVED line drawing of the installation showed one
meter with no documentation as to THREE meters being used. As the meters are PHYSICALLY part of the
installation, being no different than a disconnect or inverter to the line drawings, the utility should have
noted the need for THREE meters at the time of interconnection. These “new” meters were replaced at
the utilities leisure with meters that could not be proven to function and these were also replaced.
These were “digital” meters that have been “suspect” world wide to not work in net metering scenarios.
After legal action against my utility over this and many other issues that cost my family money and
damage to my credit rating through THEIR actions, the digital meters were replaced with mechanical
meters that do “seem” to work correctly. Still, I have THREE meters in a situation where only ONE is
needed. Since the October “current meter replacement” I have SOLD my utility several hundred KWH
more than bought every month for five straight months and my LOWEST bill has been $55.00. Several
times I have had HIGHER bills and that is due SOLEY to PRODUCING more energy not by USING more
energy. The more KWH I produce the more I pay my utility!
When the digital meters were in use, the meter reader needed 9‐11 minutes to read all of the meters.&