<?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: California Utilities Make Progress on 20% by 2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/27/california-utilities-make-progress-on-20-by-2010/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/27/california-utilities-make-progress-on-20-by-2010/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:54:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/27/california-utilities-make-progress-on-20-by-2010/#comment-9965</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=11867#comment-9965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Jon_K



Good point. There is another issue there for PG&amp;E, (and possibly the other two utilities too). That is that PG&amp;E is a  decoupled utility: their income comes partly from getting us to reduce demand, and when we make our own power, it does decrease demand (on their - mostly natural gas-fired power) so they benefit.



You are right, our roofs don&#039;t count towards the total renewable power on the grid credited to the utility, (even though California rooftops are providing over 2.5% now of peak power demand!) - only utility-bought-or-contracted for renewables count. Though PG&amp;E manages the CSI rebates, they are actually state rebates.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jon_K</p>
<p>Good point. There is another issue there for PG&amp;E, (and possibly the other two utilities too). That is that PG&amp;E is a  decoupled utility: their income comes partly from getting us to reduce demand, and when we make our own power, it does decrease demand (on their &#8211; mostly natural gas-fired power) so they benefit.</p>
<p>You are right, our roofs don&#8217;t count towards the total renewable power on the grid credited to the utility, (even though California rooftops are providing over 2.5% now of peak power demand!) &#8211; only utility-bought-or-contracted for renewables count. Though PG&amp;E manages the CSI rebates, they are actually state rebates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon_K</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/27/california-utilities-make-progress-on-20-by-2010/#comment-9964</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon_K]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=11867#comment-9964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does roof top PV make the numbers worse?  The panels on my roof offset all of my demand but I can&#039;t see how this gets counted for PG&amp;E even though PG&amp;E helped pay for them.  It must just look like decreased demand, not increased renewable generation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does roof top PV make the numbers worse?  The panels on my roof offset all of my demand but I can&#8217;t see how this gets counted for PG&amp;E even though PG&amp;E helped pay for them.  It must just look like decreased demand, not increased renewable generation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
