|
August 4, 2017
Councilmen of Pemberton Borough,
I present this to express my
concerns about the performance of
this body. Specifically I shall
address your Electric Code
(EC) which
because of its deception, is
fraudulent.
First,
I should point out to the community
that there is no budget for the
borough offices power usage. Why?
the power used isn’t measured and it
therefore becomes an unseen overhead
paid by the residents of this
community through their electric
bills.
Second,
the Borough Council takes large sums
of money from the Pemberton Borough
Electric Company (PBEC) profit and
transfers it to the general ledger
to subsidize the budget. This
avoids covering these expenses with
property taxes. By so doing
they defraud the members of the community
by depriving them of their right to
deduct that money from their income
tax through property tax deductions.
Third,
The Borough renewable policy as
defined by the Pemberton Borough
Electrical Code (EC) is incomplete.
deceptive and fraudulant. The
document states that a meter will be
supplied to a PURPA (Public
Utilities Regulatory Policy Act)
qualifying facility by the PBEC.
The method of installation is
omitted. It
states that there will
be Excess electricity, that is,
electricity that the PURPA facility
makes but is unable to use and
therefore delivers to the PBEC . In
truth, because the Electric code is
silent on how their meter will be
installed, the practice is to
install the utility meter
and solar utility meter in
Parallel when
attached to the PURPA system.
This practice does not take Excess
electricity. It takes ALL
the energy produced. That is
Fraudulant because it is never
stated or even implied in the
EC.
At
the instruction of this Body, the
PBEC pays half or less of the cost
of generation for that electricity
it receives from what it calls a
PURPA qualified source. Yet by
definition in the act, the PURPA
qualified facility shall be paid the
PURPA's
“avoided cost”. But
when power is returned to the PURPA
the PBEC charges the
full retail price. As a result the
PBEC is charging the PURPA 28˘ or
more and not 22˘ per kwh. Since the
Electric Company paid a fraction of
their normal cost for that
electricity they appreciate a profit
of at least 17˘ per kwh for all the
energy received from a PURPA
qualified device.
If
the PBEC solar
billing meter is installed
in Series with the PURPA
qualified system
as stated by the Borough Electrician, the facility is
able to make use of as much as 20%
of the generated power. What is
unused goes in the reverse direction
through their
original Utility Billing Meter which
sums it to the energy entering the PURPA qualified
residence from the grid
thus charging the PURPA system 22˘
per kwh delivered to the grid
while paying the PURPA their reduced
rate for all the energy produced,
not the energy going to the grid.
Once
the PBEC was convinced of
their error, they
changed the
utility meter to a bidirectional
meter reading energy flowing into
and out of the PURPA qualified
system. They still pay 5˘ per kwh
for what they receive and the PURPA
qualified system is still only able
to use 20% of the power generated.
The way a Grid Tied Solar system is
supposed to work is that Energy
supplied to PBEC is returned “in
kind” or they effectively pay the “avoided
cost” for the power as
defined by the PURPA. This
ultra
conservative Council
prefers to treat their residents
with a complete lack of respect.
They take joy in doing so because,
in their words, "they can do
anything they want to do".
Fourth,
the intentional lack of
clarity in the electrical
code in my view is a fraudulent
action. This resident has not only
spent $25000 for the solar system
but $50,000 in legal fees because
the Installer committed fraud when
he quoted and provided the system
in the first place, telling
this resident he
had a work around
for the prohibition
of “a reversing meter” also known as
a “Net Meter”. He didn’t.
This resident's only solution is to spend another
$30,000 to convert
the solar
installation to a
Grid Assist installation by
installing a whole house battery
backup to store the unused power
when it is generated
rather than supplying it to the grid.
Fifth,
The council should either correct
the fraudulent code or
flat out prohibit the
installation of any PURPA Qualifying
device in the Borough. Alternatively
the code should clearly state that
the PBEC will take all the power
generated and pay 5˘ for it. The
proper installation and type of
meter should be specified so the
resident and installer will
fully understand the Borough’s intent. If PBEC is going to take all the
energy, state that clearly
in the EC. If PBEC
is going to use a bidirectional
meter, state that clearly
in the EC. Remove
the term Excess and
simply state that ALL
energy entering the grid
from the PURPA
will be
purchased and NOT returned in kind.
It is
my hope that the Pemberton Borough
Council will look at their past
performance and take corrective
action to prevent future problems
for their residents and to support
those in the community who would
like to reduce their carbon
footprint or have an Uninterruptable
Indoor Power
Backup for their home. The
only reason the borough has for not
changing the EC is so they can continue to
tax their citizens using
inappropriate and inequitable tools
provided by that document.
Regards
Bruce
Buzalski
39
Simpkins Lane, Pemberton, NJ 08068 |
