<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SOTU: Who Needs Energy Policy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/25/sotu-who-needs-energy-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/25/sotu-who-needs-energy-policy/</link>
	<description>Business and Technology for the Global Generation Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:19:36 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Lindsey</title>
		<link>http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/25/sotu-who-needs-energy-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-1904</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Lindsey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.powermag.com/blog/?p=704#comment-1904</guid>
		<description>&quot;We don’t need no stinkin’ energy policy. What we have now works.&quot;

Except that many states have RES/RPS, forcing utilities to purchase or install inefficient, expensive, undispatchable energy sources, and then pass those costs off to the consumer who has no choice but to pay whatever the utility is charging if they want their power to stay on.

For example, here in southern NM, EPE touting the solar power from the Santa Teresa and Hatch arrays. You can even see the daily power output on EPE’s website. But EPE never mentions that the Santa Teresa power costs EPE 12.745 c/kWh, and from Hatch, the solar power costs 11.9 c/kWh. That’s almost 2.75 times the “base fuel” cost of 4.396 c/kWh. After applying this month’s Fuel &amp; Purch. Power Cost Adj. of minus 1.04 c/kWh, that solar power is over 3.5 times what EPE pays for fuel. Bluntly, EPE is paying more for the wholesale power from solar arrays than they are charging residential customers for retail power. The only reason EPE has to buy triple-cost solar power is the NM Renewable Portfolio Standard. 

In addition, EPE by regulation recovers from all customers the expense of buying RECs from owners of individual solar and wind power installations. Those RECs cost EPE anywhere from 8 to 15.5 c/kWh, in additon to EPE paying retail rates for spot-market power (aka net-metering).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We don’t need no stinkin’ energy policy. What we have now works.&#8221;</p>
<p>Except that many states have RES/RPS, forcing utilities to purchase or install inefficient, expensive, undispatchable energy sources, and then pass those costs off to the consumer who has no choice but to pay whatever the utility is charging if they want their power to stay on.</p>
<p>For example, here in southern NM, EPE touting the solar power from the Santa Teresa and Hatch arrays. You can even see the daily power output on EPE’s website. But EPE never mentions that the Santa Teresa power costs EPE 12.745 c/kWh, and from Hatch, the solar power costs 11.9 c/kWh. That’s almost 2.75 times the “base fuel” cost of 4.396 c/kWh. After applying this month’s Fuel &amp; Purch. Power Cost Adj. of minus 1.04 c/kWh, that solar power is over 3.5 times what EPE pays for fuel. Bluntly, EPE is paying more for the wholesale power from solar arrays than they are charging residential customers for retail power. The only reason EPE has to buy triple-cost solar power is the NM Renewable Portfolio Standard. </p>
<p>In addition, EPE by regulation recovers from all customers the expense of buying RECs from owners of individual solar and wind power installations. Those RECs cost EPE anywhere from 8 to 15.5 c/kWh, in additon to EPE paying retail rates for spot-market power (aka net-metering).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

