In a case before the Kansas Corporation Commission, customers of Westar Energy who install their own solar systems will pay a higher fixed charge than other ratepayers. Solar customers would be forced to choose between a fixed monthly fee of $50 plus an energy charge, or a $15 fixed fee plus a per-kilowatt rate plus a demand charge based on the previous month’s maximum usage. The billing options outlined in Westar’s rate proposal will greatly discourage customers from installing their own systems. It would generally increase the payback period from 12 years to more than 20 years. This will greatly discourage their customers from installing their own power generation.

Stakeholders vs. Shareholders:  As a Westar shareholder, I should be happy as this will likely increase my dividends. As a stakeholder, I am appalled at this proposal. Westar is a public monopoly, and there is no competition to keep rates low. Are these policies reasonable? Clearly, Westar is putting its corporate investors’ interests above the interests of its ratepayers

Westar’s contradiction: Westar’s website says it will support public policies and initiatives to accelerate the development and use of environmentally beneficial and cost-effective strategies. It will create energy efficiency programs for both customers and Westar’s own operations, zero – or low – emissions generation technologies, and renewable energy resources. This proposal is a repudiation of that statement.

Benefits to Westar and Other Customers: Westar has been promoting the idea that rooftop solar generation increases costs for other customers. That is just not the case. Solar research studies in Vermont, New York, California, Texas, and Nevada concluded that solar provided a net positive benefit for utility companies and their customers. A 2015 study done in Missouri is even more relevant to Kansas. A cost-benefit study of net metering in Missouri arrived at the same conclusion as the other studies, “ Net metering provides a net benefit. “ Missouri has 6000 net metering customers while Westar now has approximately 300. It is unlikely that a study done in Kansas would come up with a different result, but the Westar executives claim differently.

Anticompetitive: If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing more insulation and storm windows, I am applauded for following Westar’s conservation guidelines. If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing solar panels, I would be  rewarded with a higher electric rate. That is irrational and makes clear that anti-competitiveness is the main driver of this proposal.

Fees:  Residential customers are already paying a customer fee, an electricity fee, a fuel charge, a distribution fee, an environmental fee, an energy efficiency charge, and even Westar’s property taxes. Last June, our electricity bill was $24.95, but our total came to $53.27 after everything was added in. The $12 customer fee is already greater than most other companies charge, and Westar’s rates are the second-highest in our region.

Environmental: Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Burning coal releases mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.

Finally: If the Kansas Corporation Commission were to require that solar customers be compensated fairly for the excess power they produce, it would greatly encourage private investments in renewable energy installation. It is in Kansas’s best long-term interest to encourage private investment in renewable energy. Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces deaths and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. We must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, and we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources.

(C) – 2023 J.C. Moore