Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth

A Solar Firm's Plan to Build Off-Grid Neighborhoods in California (yahoo.com) 158

Sunnova is one of America's largest rooftop solar companies, according to the New York Times. But they've now applied to California's Public Utilities Commission for permission to become the state's first solar (and storage) micro-utility, initiating formal steps to qualify and "request a certificate to construct and operate microgrids," targetting new home developments that aren't yet connected to the grid.

"We see a future where communities, neighborhoods, and businesses can operate independently from the legacy grid with sustainable energy sources that provide uninterrupted power," says the company's founder and CEO. "We believe microgrids address a strong need in the market for more robust energy solutions and better connectivity...." But he's also offering touting another possible benefit: "relief that the existing transmission and distribution system will experience given that most of the power that will be consumed by these communities will be generated locally from renewable resources."

The company likes to point out that America's recently-passed climate bill included tax incentives to encourage microgrids. But the New York Times describes it as "a business model that is illegal in much of the United States." Sunnova said it would offer those residents electricity that was up to 20 percent cheaper than the rates charged by investor-owned utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. If approved by regulators, the micro-utility model, also known as a microgrid, could undermine the growth of those larger utilities by depriving them access to new homes or forcing them to lower their rates to keep that business. Sunnova executives argue that the approach they are seeking approval for was authorized under a California law passed almost two decades ago for a resort just south of Lake Tahoe. In addition, the company says advances in solar and battery technology mean that neighborhoods can be designed to generate more than enough electricity to meet their own needs at a lower cost than relying on the grid.

"If they don't want to choose me, that should be their right; if they don't want to choose you, that should be their right, too," said John Berger, the chief executive of Sunnova.

A small number of homeowners have gone off the grid as the cost of solar panels and batteries has fallen. But doing so can be hard or impossible. Some local governments have rejected permits for off-grid homes on health and safety grounds, arguing that a connection to the grid is essential. But connecting a single home to the grid can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, which means an off-grid system may actually be cheaper — especially for properties in remote areas, or in places where the local grid is at its capacity and would require significant upgrades to serve more homes. Off-grid setups can also be appealing because once a system is paid off, the cost of operating and maintaining it is often modest and predictable, whereas utility rates can move up sharply.... The nationwide average retail electricity rate increased 11 percent in June from a year earlier, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But the kind of micro-utilities that Sunnova hopes to create have also had problems. The utopian visions of generating electricity where it is used have often run into maintenance and other problems. Many tiny utilities created under such models in the United States and Canada were later swallowed up by larger power companies.... Sunnova's microgrid approach could suffer a similar fate. But the costs of solar panels and batteries have tumbled over the last decade, making the energy that off-grid systems generate much more affordable....

Utilities have been pressing regulators to reduce the compensation homeowners receive for the excess solar energy their rooftop systems send to the grid. The companies have argued that customers with solar panels are being offered generous credits for power that they are not contributing adequately toward the cost of maintaining power lines and other grid equipment....

Building and operating microgrids could provide a steady source of income to companies like Sunnova. That could essentially transform the rooftop solar companies into the kinds of utilities that they have long fought against.

Sunnova bills itself as an "Energy as a Service" company, and they expect their microgrids to experience 30 minutes or less of outages each year, the Times points out, "compared with an average of two hours a year at California's large investor-owned utilities."

In the article, the chief executive of home-building company Lennar says they've already formed a partnership with Sunnova. "We value the current electric grid and we're intrigued by new microgrid solutions that can supplement and support the traditional utility grid and help solve reliability during extreme weather and peak demand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Solar Firm's Plan to Build Off-Grid Neighborhoods in California

Comments Filter:
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday September 03, 2022 @05:41PM (#62849989)
    It becomes very tempting to take away electricity from the poor. If we all have our own personal electricity instead of it being a public service then we can leave the bottom half (or more) in the dark.

    That's a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons. Ignoring the fact that we lose the benefits of a large and well educated population (you never know where the next Albert Einstein will come from) it's only a matter of time before a demagogue notices that a substantial portion of the population is being left out of civilization and uses them against the rest of us.

    You can't have a modern civilization that abandons a significant portion of its population to poverty and despair. It's far too easy to give those people firearms and other weapons and send them off to be the next Taliban.
    • We have been screwed over by SCE, the local CA energy provider, for too long. As it always goes, the poor get the butt end of the stick, and it is the PROFITS *NOT* THE PANELS that cause this. Maybe these companies can consider the damage they are doing before announcing their quarterly profits.
      • The solution is to decouple generation from distribution. The same corporation should not be invested in both. Ideally, the state should maintain the distribution network. Let the market compete on generation. Toll roads are a bad idea, so are toll mains.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by crmarvin42 ( 652893 )
          There are A LOT of areas where this mentality makes sense. Electricity, Water, Phone, Broadband.

          We've been subsidizing utility, phone and internet companies for generations now, trying to make them extend service to EVERYONE, not just the most profitable. And we still have large swaths of the country that are underserved by at least one of the above basic services. If a government utility connector existed, there'd be no argument about the cost of running services to everywhere, and we'd not be forced to
          • If a government utility connector existed, there'd be no argument about the cost of running services to everywhere, and we'd not be forced to over pay the utility providers to pay lip service to rural customers

            How could that possibly work? Just because I drag my trailer home 40 miles into the Arizona desert and take the wheels off, suddenly the taxpayer is on the hook to pay $20M or whatever it costs to run power lines there?

            • Much of Arizona (and the west in general) is federally owned. So most of the land truly in the middle of nowhere is illegal to park said trailer on, because youâ(TM)d be trespassing.

              That said, if Someone owns the land, they pay taxes on the land. Those taxes entitle people to services. We donâ(TM)t say, âoesucks to be youâ if you call 911 from rural areas. We send the police or sherif, it just takes more time for them to get there. It may take longer to get upgrades, and we can put li
          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday September 04, 2022 @08:15AM (#62850965) Homepage Journal

            Capitalism isn't good at keeping costs down. Look at what is happening in the UK right now.

            Capitalists decided that it wasn't worth keeping the UK's last big gas storage facility open, so there was no way to store gas in the summer when it was cheap.

            On top of that, although the price of extracting gas has not increased, the market rate has due to supplies from Russia dwindling. They could sell it to consumer at the old price and still be profitable, but of course they are going to charge market rate.

            Some countries have stepped in to protect citizens and businesses from extreme prices. Windfall taxes, or in France's case they just nationalized the biggest energy company and capped the increase at 4%.

            The market only drives down price when the resource is abundant. Once it becomes scarce the market uses price to control demand, which is a politically correct way of saying it lets people freeze to death in the dark because that's more profitable.

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          That's got it's points, but I'm not sure you should really trust it. Or at least if you do that, don't make the distribution network required to buy from anyone who wants to sell to them.

          The distribution network is sensitive to the site and timing of sources of power. Demand isn't constant, and power available needs to meet demand. So you've got to have a large enough ballast, of one sort or another, to handle the swings of demand. One way to do that is the have generators that you can ramp up quickly.

        • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Toll roads are a bad idea

          False [planetizen.com].

          Wrong. [archive.org]

          Incorrect. [archive.org]

          Debunked. [sfgate.com]

          I have more proof. Before I spend my time to post it, what proof do you have that tolls are a bad idea?

    • It really ends up more as an urban vs suburban/rural debate rather than socio-economic. Sure, there is overlap, but that is almost secondary. The core need is to have distributed energy solutions, co-located with consumption wherever possible. When you look at cities that cannot self-generate or generate on their immediate periphery then obviously solar doesn't make sense.

      But, for cities things like district heating/cooling with co-generation might make sense. Let them import during the day and export

    • The grid is valuable, but there are places it doesn't go. The more people move there, the more valuable a grid interconnection becomes, so the more likely it is to happen. Flip side, if not that many people are moving there, a grid interconnection isn't going to happen anyway.

      QED, this isn't going to change much. Everybody wants the stability you get from a grid connection. Worries about sun not shining and wind not blowing are exaggerated, but there are times when these things are true locally.

    • This project sounds to me like one of those libertarian community experiments. Lots of "Way of the future" talk, followed by a quick slide into disaster.

      Power redundancy is a great idea. Power independence creates the Texas power outages, but writ smaller. Either within the self isolated community, or in the community outside of it, as investment in the community assets are cut back by libertarian fucktards who think they've found a "Better Way", but who'll still expect the rest of us to bail them out if
      • Whats wrong with the virtual grid having a connection to the grid in the event of an issue?
        • What's wrong is that someone else will have to pay to maintain that backup grid capacity just in case the microgrid shits itself.

    • Exactly. Letting people have their own solar is bad.

      People should not be allowed to:
      generate their own solar power - the poor can't afford solar
      own a car - the poor can't afford EV
      own a bike - the poor can't afford a bike and safety gear
      own roller skates - the poor can't afford safety gear
      own a home - the poor can't afford a home
      own a dog or other animal - the poor can't afford an animal
      own a computer - the poor can't afford a computer
      have internet or WiFi - the poo can't afford monthly bills
      cook their own

      • Sadly nowadays, I can't tell if comments like yours are sarcasm or genuinely idiotic. I'll bet at least a double-digit percent of people will say "right on!" to what you're saying.

        • by sconeu ( 64226 )

          Welcome to the world of Poe's Law [wikipedia.org].

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          The thing is, he's got a point. It's not a strong point, but it's a valid one. Each "way of being independent in my choices" is a thing that weakens to social connection. This really *is* a true statement. That the ideal of "being independent" is an idiotic idea fostered by Hollywood than never existed and has never been able to exist (except for really short periods of time) is not normally considered.

          But it's also true that the opposite extreme isn't very desirable.

          Where the ideal middle ground is dep

          • by sfcat ( 872532 )

            That the ideal of "being independent" is an idiotic idea fostered by Hollywood than never existed and has never been able to exist (except for really short periods of time) is not normally considered.

            Um what? So Pioneers were the collectivist type? You don't get to just deny facts you wish weren't true. The US was very isolationist for most of its history. And during the robber baron era (late 19th century) the US was extremely independent. This idea has been core to the US culture since before its founding. Did you not get taught any of this in school? If so, ask for your money back because you were ripped off.

            • by HiThere ( 15173 )

              YES. The pioneers were collectivist. The wagons traveled in trains. The explorers or mountain men went out for 6 months or so at a time, and then returned. Read the history of Daniel Boone. Look up the history of barn raising.

      • By letting people have their own stuff we are just highlighting that poor people don't have that stuff and make them feel bad. This bad feeling stuff must stop at all costs! Everyone should have exactly the same stuff. Issued by the government of course.

        I know you're joking but there's a legitimate threat here in a way that isn't comparable to EVs or roller skates.

        If all the rich people get their own, completely offgrid solar power, they'll be less and less interested in maintaining any sort of public infrastructure. Why should my tax dollars go to support the electricity grid? I don't even use it! Let's cut investment by 10% every year from now on.

        You can see the disaster that is the US public transport and other services that work properly in other count

    • It already isn't a "public service". You get charged money for it.

      • Just because something costs money it doesn't stop being a public service. Public service doesn't mean that it's free but that it's offered to everyone, publicly, and (usually, I know it ain't always the case) at the same conditions.

    • Yeah, this is a PR stunt.

      It becomes obvious when you understand how difficult it is to build in California between the NIMBYs, community extortionists/activists (just another kind of NIMBY really) and environmental groups

      • Yes, it can be very difficult to build anything in California. Now figure on the "micro" part, say a single gated community. The people there are relatively rich, and they already pay relatively large amounts to keep the gated community exclusive. A service mows all the lawns there, keeps the sidewalks clean, the streets clear, etc...

        They've been plagued with power outages recently. They're a newer community, so aren't piped for natural gas. So no natural gas generators.

        So somebody sells them the conce

    • Don't worry about it. It's never going to be enough to power your home and charge your EV.

    • It becomes very tempting to take away electricity from the poor. If we all have our own personal electricity instead of it being a public service then we can leave the bottom half (or more) in the dark.

      This isn't about forcing every home to have their own generation/storage solution and those that can't afford it go without. This is about a purpose built, independent, isolated electrical grid. Think of it as an electrical HOA.

      Living in an existing community that has an HOA doesn't deny services to low income homeowners, even though most HOAs are for new communities and therefore are probably in the higher priced market. In the past, communities used to have all sorts of shared services: swimming pools

    • There is a possibility that if enough of these solar grids come into place (not just for new builds, it'll have to include retrofitting existing communities where possible) then there will be less drain on the grid and more unused electrons floating about from the current sources so utilities have to make them cheaper to get used so the people still on the grid might still benefit.
    • Abandon... these potential homeowners will be going in knowing the power deal, it will be more like an HOA but with its own power generation, there will be rules about usage ie. No bitcoin farming or industrial style equipment running, and no chance to sell the power generation facilities off. And let's not forget it's California... there's plenty of people with money to spend there.
      If everyone behaved themselves, it could most definitely work.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The summary says that they expect their grids to have 30 minutes or less of outages per year.

      To me as a European that sounds really bad. But I see that for California it's not terrible.

      I think the problems with electricity supply go much deeper in the US.

      • PG&E is a /for profit/ company and not a utility and cuts every possible corner to maximize shareholder value at the (oftentimes literal) expense of us rate payers. If they spent 1/10 what they burn for advertising and lobbying on maintenance of the grid they're responsible for, we would literally have had at least 50% less acres of wildfires over the past decade.
        • by sfcat ( 872532 )
          PG&E is absolutely a utility. And their budgets have to be approved by the CA state regulators. Don't make up stuff. This is all a matter of public record. I know the media all you all ginned up against the evil corporation but the cuts in the tree trimming budgets were demanded by the regulators to pay for increases in wind and solar generation. You are mad at the wrong people because you don't understand how the CA system works.
      • by sfcat ( 872532 )

        To me as a European that sounds really bad. But I see that for California it's not terrible.

        Um, I was in Spain for the summer. We had far more than 30mins of power outage in the 3 months I was there. On another note, do you not know how fixed point math works or something? I have never understood your sig.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's the name.

          • by sfcat ( 872532 )
            Which name? one?, Silvermoon? Texture.cs?
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              One

              • by sfcat ( 872532 )
                It is 1 in a fixed point representation with 16 bits of precision (to the left of the decimal point). That name accurately describes what it is. Zero would still be 0 in a 16-bit fixed point representation. It would have been better to do it in hex (0x0100) as that's easier to understand but it is completely correct. BTW, two would be 0x0200 and 1.5 would be 0x0180. Did you think the code was wrong or something? Is that why you used it in your sig?
    • >"It becomes very tempting to take away electricity from the poor. If we all have our own personal electricity instead of it being a public service then we can leave the bottom half (or more) in the dark."

      It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

      Even in areas where one is REQUIRED to be connected to the public grid, I assume that doesn't exclude connection also to another grid. Sure, it does mean you will still get a zero KW/h bill that has some dollars on it for maintenance, but that shouldn't bother most

    • "it's only a matter of time before a demagogue notices that a substantial portion of the population is being left out of civilization and uses them against the rest of us."

      You have it backwards of course, but the basic idea is correct. It's thinly dispersed rural populations that get run over by urban based armies. See Australian Aborigines, American Indians, Zulus, Gauls vs Rome.

      The process of demonizing rural people is already underway. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]

      And of course there was Hillary'

    • How is that any different from someone not being able to pay $250/mo for conventional utility supplied electricity?
  • by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Saturday September 03, 2022 @06:04PM (#62850017)
    There are huge benefits to a centralized grid. That said on the individual, and small collective, level there are also huge benefits to localized power generation and storage. The larger the network the more redundancy. Which when it comes to reliability is a huge benefit. However, for remote communities, costs side, not having to mar the natural landscape with power lines is also a huge benefit for the locals. It seems like there times when this would be appropriate and a net positive, but it can’t be at the expense of developers being able to sell homes without reliable electricity. As they say, the devil is in the details.
    • Where are these "remote communites" - are they viable or are they destined to be ghost towns? It is getting mighty hot in the West and dry too. You have power but no water. You have water but no food - because your market is too small and too distant for even Walmart to service economically.
    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      it can't be at the expense of developers being able to sell homes without reliable electricity.

      As long as they disclose this fact to their buyers, why not? Why should it be illegal to live off-grid [primalsurvivor.net]?

  • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Saturday September 03, 2022 @06:17PM (#62850061)

    First, a press release is "news for nerds"?

    Second, I'll believe solar power with storage is a viable business plan when I see it making a profit. So many have tried this and failed that it is difficult to believe it is going to work this time. In the fine summary it is pointed out this is possible in part because of government subsidies. Rarely does a government subsidized business make a profit. If this was such a great idea with a high probability of success then private investors would be standing in line to give them money.

    Third, why make a big deal about the difficulties of selling electricity from residential rooftop solar onto the grid? If the solar power system is properly engineered then it should not need to be able to sell electricity to the grid to be viable. Being low in cost and meeting a majority of the electrical needs for the residence should mean it is a win without needing to feed electricity to the grid.

    Fourth, I can see why a city government would be reluctant to allow homes inside the city to go without a connection to the grid. If there is a failure in the solar power system to meet the electrical needs of the family inside then it would be a burden on the city to keep them safe. If the family leaves the home because of the solar power problems then the city is left with a house that might be difficult to sell because it has no reliable electrical service.

    Rooftop solar PV and batteries may have made big improvements on cost and reliability lately but it is still a long way from something that can be relied upon for low cost electricity when and where it is needed. Solar PV on the grid is proving to be a bad idea over and over. Yet people keep trying it over and over. I'm reminded of a joke about the definition of insanity.

    I'm all good with people trying to prove solar PV with storage a viable alternative to electricity from fossil fuels. I have a problem when I'm seeing my tax money spent on this insanity. You want to prove this works? Fine, bet your own money on that horse, just don't bet mine.

    It would be nice to see the government get out of the energy business but I know that's not going to happen. Best we can do is minimize it. Large civil projects are going to need government involvement since it involves things like interstate electrical grids. Even small projects like a "micro-grid" is going to need government involvement because we can't have a section of a city in the dark because someone missed some important detail in the engineering. What we can certainly do without is government money being gambled on someone's Utopian "green" energy idea.

    • First, a press release is "news for nerds"?

      Hey it gives us something to complain about or pick apart.

      Slashdot would have a lot fewer stories if it weren't for press releases. All those whiz-bang new battery tech posts? They're all press releases (mostly from university PR groups). Most of Intel / Apple / Microsoft / Google / Tesla stories? They're based on thinly-disguised press releases.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      If there is a failure in the solar power system to meet the electrical needs of the family inside then it would be a burden on the city to keep them safe.

      And yet our city says nothing when the investor-owned utility drops entire neighborhoods for a week following a windstorm.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I live in a very sunny place. My rooftop solar + enough batteries to be effectively off grid is frightfully expansive and even with the 26% tax credit still has a pay off of over 13 years. That assumes it doesn't break or need repairs and the panels don't degrade too fast and rates stay the same or go up and blah blah blah. Without the tax credit, uhm no, I don't see myself doing it at all. The credit made it barely worth doing. And that 13 years is straight payoff and does not include the opportunity

      • Whats the difference between what you pay for electricity from a utility and what the monthly cost would be for installing solar+battery? Lots of EV drivers are "paying monthly" for their car from the savings they are making from not paying for gas.
        Plus the investment in solar should increase the value of your property so the 13 years might be a red herring
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        In other words it's definitely worth doing, it's just the initial capital outlay that is a problem for you.

        Luckily there is a solution. Governments can borrow money cheaply and lend it to you, so you can buy a solar+storage system, and pay the loan back while still saving money on your energy bill.

        Then after 13 years you would only have maintenance costs. Your energy would be free. Depending on your energy bill, it might be worth taking out a loan if you can borrow cheaply.

        The only real problem is that so m

        • Batteries don't last forever. At 13 years many would need replacement.

        • No by the 13 year mark the panels are already measurably degraded and the batteries likely in worse condition.

          And I should take a government loan? So on top of a financially questionable investment I should add interest to my costs? I'm jaw dropped. That would only make it worse. I'm not going to say something typically Slashdot quality mean. I think you honestly believe what you're saying and meant well. I'll just say, no, the math is bad, and leave it at that.

          I did -lots- of math and got quotes from

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Rarely does a government subsidized business make a profit.

      Well that's just not true. Maybe consider the entire oil industry and most of the agricultural industries in this country for a start.

  • Ahhhh... we lose "Big Oil" only to gain "Big Photon". Of course. Follow the money.

  • First, Texas keep asserting it does not want to be governed by Washington and wants to be free of federal regulations and fiercely resisting attempts to connect its electric grid to rest of the country.

    Second, By the same argument large parts of Texans would like freedom from regulations from Austin and strike out on their own, disconnecting their homes from the grid.

    Third, ... mm third,... oops I forgot.

  • The existing grid has many decades' worth of debt to service and costs to retire old thermal and nuclear stations and remediate the land under them, all of which is folded into users' monthly bills. This looks like a good way to avoid those costs. Solar and wind installations also avoid water-related costs and issues that the existing grid will have buy its way out of.
  • "offer those residents electricity that was up to 20 percent cheaper"

    Let's take a quick look at that statement. Does it mean 20% savings? No. It simply promises no more than that. You might get 0% savings or anything in between. You could even pay more than those on the grid. The only promise is that you will never get more than 20% savings. It's all up to Sunnova and their attorneys who write the contract you will sign.

    And then you have panels on your roof and batteries in your garage, but, who do they bel

  • As a Canadian, I see public utilities as a way to buy things in bulk that the individual consumer can't get a good deal on. Roads, water, garbage collection and medical care usually fall into this category. As the costs of small solar and wind installations drop, it's becoming possible for small installations to compete with the grid.

    Public utilities are like any other large organization of humans. After an initial period of tight focus on the purpose for which the organization was formed (in this case g

  • 1) "Energy as a Service" - all energy is a service. You don't pay for the utilities to come into your house, the power company or builder did and they provide energy on a usage basis. So that's not a thing, it's not a new business model.

    2) The grid is designed to provide power to as many people as possible, with sufficient generators and capacity to deal with generation issues. This effectively puts neighborhoods entirely on their own; if there's a problem, you're out with no backups. Brown outs on t

  • This is a most excellent idea and should be supported by everyone. If it works, it will be a demonstration for the skeptical that a real community can generate all the power it needs from the wind and the sun.

    Its exactly what should have been done already, before marching whole countries off into the Net Zero swamp. Before trying to do it to the whole country, do it on a small scale and make sure it works.

    One hopes that the entire green agenda will be implemented. That is, no connections to the electrici

  • "During a grid outage, the microgrid would island from the grid and the community would rely on its on-site power. The design allows the microgrid to operate independently for a minimum of 300 hours.

    About 82% of the community’s power would come from the microgrid with the remainder coming from the grid. The microgrid would cost about $16,000 to $20,000 per home, Sunnova said in the Sept. 1 filing before the California Public Utilities Commission."

    I can tell exactly how this works ... they use massive

    • PS. I should say a big solar farm and a big grid energy storage site. Nearly all the power generated will be sold, nearly all the income for the battery will be created by providing peaking for the normal grid.

      In the rare California winter storm they will slurping off the grid pipe same as everyone else, so the microgrid solves nothing ... the grid and generation has to be scaled for worst case and they do fuck all for worst case.

      • by Budenny ( 888916 )

        Very interesting point.

        Isn't it curious that the alleged goal of the green/renewable movement, net zero, does not have, anywhere, a single working demonstration site.

        And that when one that purports to be that is proposed, an examination of the fine print shows that its no such thing. The way you describe this one working isn't a community living on renewable energy at all.

        And yet people in positions of power over policy are seriously proposing to spend billions or even trillions on taking whole countries t

  • If local generation is desirable, it seems like it would be better to go all the way down to the individual residence.
    If scaling up is good, then a state sized grid seems like it would be better.

    What advantage does being neighborhood sized give over the existing grid or existing rooftop solar?

  • Who exactly will maintain these systems? Are you really sure you'd rather rely on your HOA to do it, rather than a large diversified faceless regulated company?

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...