As regular readers know, I've got a grid-tied photovoltaic system. It's a beautiful thing to see that meter spinning backwards on a sunny day, the electrons from my roof being sucked up by the grid to my neighbor's house. As I've proudly said before, many of my inane comments here are posted by the sun.

You also might know that here in Colorado, we passed an Amendment to our state constitution (#37) that requires utility companies to increase their use of alternative energy, including solar power.

But what you don't know, and I didn't 'till recently, is that Xcel Energy doesn't like one-to-one net metering, which is the agreement I currently have with them. That 's what we've got now. I send them some extra juice at peak hours and the meter moves backwards at the same rate it would move forward. Watt for Watt. Well, now they want to change all that via a proposal to our state's Public Utilities Commission, a little thing called Docket 04S-164E.

They want to install another meter on my house to monitor the amount of electricity the roof is making, and charge me "transportation and distribution" fees on a monthly basis. They want to put another meter on the battery charger to make money off that as well. Oh, wait, it gets better: I'm supposed to pay for these new meters, and any alteration to the house that is required. And, I get to pay them to have a a special meter reader come out and read just these meters every month.

If I knew this was going to happen, I'd never have bought the system, and if it passes, nobody will want to. And if it passes, it'll give other Utility companies a precedent to do the same thing.

Oh, and have I heard any of this from Xcel? Nope. Not a peep. They don't want me to know what's going on until it is done. Typical.

Many Colorado PV owners are writing letters and we are hoping to get some press / Internet coverage. Here's my letter:

Dear Commissioners:

This letter concerns Docket 04S-164E before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission - the effort by Xcel Energy to change net metering. While the recent testimony of OCC and Western Resource Advocates accurately reflect my views, I would like to add a personal statement.

My wife and I own a grid-tied photovoltaic system on our home that was installed in 1998. As part of the SolarSource program, we received a one-to-one net metering arrangement with what was then the Public Service Company of Colorado, now Xcel Energy. The SolarSource program and the one-to-one net metering was a deciding factor for us in making a costly long-term investment in a photovoltaic system. Docket 04S-164E drastically changes the anticipated return on our investment of our photovoltaic system.

We are quite proud of being solar energy pioneers. We find it gratifying that when it is sunny (as it so often is in Colorado) our meter runs backwards, sending this clean electricity onto the grid to our neighbors' homes. As this often happens during peak load hours we feel that we are helping our whole community by supplying electricity instead of consuming it. We hope that our investment will encourage others to invest in photovoltaic systems on their homes and businesses as well. Again, Docket 04S-16E can only serve to discourage this growing source of alternative energy at a time when our state (and country) needs it the most.

We supported and voted for Colorado Amendment 37 because we believe it is in the best interest of our country and its future citizens to actively pursue alternative energy sources in the immediate future. We believe that Docket 04S-164E does not met the requirements of Amendment 37. It will discourage the installation of, and investment in, residential and business photovoltaic systems.

Our photovoltaic system is fully operational and grid-tied as it was installed and approved six years ago. We feel that it is unfair for Xcel to require the addition of new meters at our expense to this system. Furthermore, installing these additional meters may require modifications to our home (again at our expense) and we will have to pay Xcel Energy to have these new meters read by special meter readers. It especially bothers us that the result of these new meters is to reduce the return on our investment. Were Docket 04S-164E in effect when we were considering investing in our photovoltaic system, we would not have had it installed.

In closing, we strongly believe that Docket 04S-164E will have a chilling effect on the growing use of residential and business photovoltaic systems, it is in opposition to the requirements of Amendment 37, it unfairly charges us for changes to our system, and decreases the value of our investment. It will also set a nationwide precedent, thus discouraging the contribution of photovoltaic electricity to our national energy dependence problem.

I urge you to reject Xcel Energy's changes to net metering.

So, there you have it. Opinions, advice, etc? Before I get screwed.

Thanks all,

~jms~