Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. John McCoy, (Tulalip) (D) on January 11, 2010, changes the definition of a generator from an electrical capacity of 100 kilowatts to two megawatts. The act requires that use of one of these generators that results in excess kilowatt hour credits must be reimbursed by the consumer’s electrical company. The consumer may choose to either carry over excess credits to another billing period or be reimbursed financially.
- Referred to the House Technology, Energy, and Communications Committee on January 11, 2010.
- Substitute offered in the House on January 28, 2010, permits customer-generators to participate in virtual net metering. The substitute bill removes provisions that would allow customer-generators to carry over excess kilowatt credits and apply those credits to subsequent bills. The substitute bill also removes provisions that allow customer-generators, who do not choose to carry over excess generation credits to subsequent billing periods, the following options. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on January 28, 2010.
- Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 2, 2010.
- Referred to the House Technology, Energy, and Communications Committee on January 11, 2010.
- Passed 59 to 39 in the House on February 15, 2010, increases the allowable electrical generating nameplate capacity of a net metering system to one megawatts. The bill allows customer-generators to participate in virtual net metering and specifies that renewable energy credits produced as a result is the property of the customer-generator.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on February 17, 2010.
- Referred to the Senate Environment, Water & Energy Committee on February 17, 2010.
- Referred to the House Rules Committee on March 11, 2010.
Comments
1) Re: 2010 House Bill 2471 (Requiring consumer compensation for electrical generator use) by JR Sloan on February 3, 2010In the substitute bill:
Reference Sec. 2. lines 18 through 29.
It appears from the above that through 2013, less than 25% of 1% of the 1996 peak demand will be incentivized for net billing systems; Thereafter, incentives will be 50% of 1%. Of these minuscule amounts, at least 50% must be reserved for renewable sources.
I have no quarrel with incentives that actually achieve something. This petty incentive system will provide for little more than public relations “feel good” demonstrations, without offering a sincere, market-driven opportunity to entice citizens and domestic firms to first, install the desired energy systems, and second to realistically measure their impact on total consumption.
Total energy (read electricity) demand is in no danger of declining. Offering realistic levels of incentives, not just token demonstration measures, is the only way the State can encourage citizen participation on any kind of a commercially-developable scale.
Drop the “0.25%” and “0.5%” limits. If anything, raise them to 5% and 10% in the short run, larger amounts in the future. If achieved, the numbers would provide additional energy to the state and relieve production pressures for utilities. More importantly, this would help the developing industries that create and install smaller-scale energy plants for use by thousands of smaller firms and private residences across the state.
Encouraging a broader range of potential energy providers builds sustainability in the energy system. It’s one of only a few ways that could help
JR Sloan, Spokane
Introduced in the House on January 11, 2010
Click here to view bill details.