Listening in to a hearing about Evergy rates for solar customers. It's been a long battle, including a ruling at the state supreme court that said the most rates needed to be changed again because they violated the law.

Today's hearing is about the proposal to make the appropriate changes.

Evergy is proposing a grid access fee charge. $3 per kW of solar installed.

Generally speaking, Evergy says (and has always said) because of how rates are designed solar customers don't pay their fair share of fixed costs. Because they generate their own electricity they use less from Evergy, so they pay less, sometimes nothing.

The challenge of fixing that, is that the KS Supreme Court ruled that you can't discriminate against solar customers, or make them pay a different rate structure.

Enter grid access fee. EVERYONE will be charged $3 per kW of solar installed. (So, if you have 0, you'd pay $0)...

...but everyone is charged the same fee, right?!?!

Well, that's what the Kansas Corporation Commission will decide.

Utility companies on the docket (Evergy, Pioneer Electric COOP) keep pointing to a part of the ruling that says solar customers can be charged differently if they are provided different services. Hence, the grid access fee. A different charge, for a different service.

Other utilities on the docket keep hitting that same note — a grid access fee is appropriate because it charges solar costumers differently, but based on providing a different service, which is OK according to the court.

CURB (Citizen's Utility Ratepayer Board) says they're worried about the proposed rates. They say there are many similarities between grid access fee and the struck down demand charge. Worried it will only lead to MORE legal challenges.

CURB is proposing a 3rd option. Put all residential customers on same rate structure. Then, track the revenues Evergy would have gained if it charged a grid access fee to be used in future rate cases.

Attorney for Vote Solar (organization that brought the lawsuit that led to this new hearing) challenging testimony from Evergy. He says overestimated subsidy that exists.

He argues the idea that fixed costs for all residential customers is $77 a month creates a subsidy is true, but not for solar customers, but for anyone who uses less electricity.

Finally, he says grid access fee is as discriminatory as previous demand fee, and that a minimum bill (the alternate proposal) is not discriminatory, but just bad policy.

KCC staff up now. Says we're not here to re-litigate previous work. We already determined there is a subsidy for solar customers.

Our task now, is to figure out how to minimize that subsidy while complying with the law that you can't discriminate.

However, she's also worried that the grid access fee is too similar to the struck down demand fee.

Staff says they believe the minimum bill is the most fair, straightforward solution. Especially if you put in safeguards for low-income houses.

OK Ya'll, that's it for opening statements. I, unfortunately, have to move on and won't be listening to the rest of testimony (for the most part). Thanks for tuning in!