[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[dio2002 at indra.com]

> On 5/26/2010 11:26 AM, dio2002 at indra.com wrote:
>> regarding rate hikes, i can't say i've personally every experienced a
>> utility / energy based rate hike rate hike related to the "greenifying"
>> of
>> my grid.  have you?  where are the examples?
>
> http://cbs4denver.com/news/xcel.summer.energy.2.1716029.html
>
> Xcel's rate hike was directly related to higher operating costs
> associated with wind farms, if you dig into the numbers. IREA in the
> same time-frame has had none.

i read the same story by a different paper today.  where does it say it's
tied to the cost of wind any where in the article you posted?  i don't see
it.

the article i read this morning said it was a 'conservation' move by xcel.
 i guess that's all up to interpretation and how you want to spin it. 
when your own infrastructure is taxed to handle peak demand in high
season, i guess it makes sense to encourage conservation by discouraging
use with dual rate tiers which for all i know has nothing to do with
actual demand spikes but attempts to raise profits as hot customers turn
on their ACs.

> Even better... Xcel in July of 2009 asked for a rate hike *specifically*
> for houses with solar energy to recoup losses.
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12933360
>
> Xcel's got the Colorado PUC in their back pockets... pretty much.
> Natural Gas has (strangely) remained at record-lows for a couple of
> YEARS now, and coal hasn't exactly been expensive.
>
> The only thing pushing Xcel's costs up is the "green" projects they're
> undertaking, with the blessing of the PUC, digging into your wallet.
> They'd already budgeted in the new coal plant in Pueblo.

show me some numbers.  :)  if you're talking science, you seem to be
making an assumption here based on what?  show me the cost breakdown of
windfarms vs gas vs.. and the breakdown of what percentages of these form
the total pool of energy supplied by xcel to the grid?  breakdown the
revenues and the profits of each stream that comprises the whole.   your
statement appears logical and may even be right but i'm basically taking
you at your word that you actually researched this, had access to their
numbers and nothing else to do for the entire afternoon but run numbers.
:)

in terms of the article, if xcel truly is passing the costs on to solar
customers and not generating extra profit off it, there are possibly
people that don't mind paying the higher fee if they feel it's a benefit
to society and the environment.  at some point that cutoff point is going
to discourage use in which case solar drops in popularity.  if they are
using it as a means to dishonestly jack up rates, i think people have a
right to be pissed off and wonder why.  but how do you really know what
xcel's motives are?. otoh, if you're not a solar home owner, you don't
care b/c it doesn't affect you which means rates stayed the same for the
majority of xcel's customers. in essence, this article doesn't really
address the topic at hand.