Solar Panels, Monthly Fixed Charges not offset by Net-Metering. :(

[lxskllr]

Used to be uneven lighting was bad for the panels. Dunno if that's still the case.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's only going to get more interesting going forward. Eventually I imagine they'll charge everyone a fee, whether they're on the grid or not.

I've already heard stories of people basically being charged for trespassing on their own property, because that particular municipality considers a house abandoned and property of the city if there is no hydro or gas service. It's BS how these corporations can extort money from us like that. The idea of freedom just does not exist anymore.

I think here in Ontario it's possible to go off grid, but not sure if they'll let you in the city. My dream is to eventually own a cottage and be mostly off grid. I'd want some form of internet though, maybe even settle for satellite or own an apartment block and do microwave ptp from it.

Basically I just want out of the system before it collapses and takes me with it. We depend too much on things that are out of our control these days, such as prices of services. These things keep going up on a yearly, even monthly basis. Hydro prices have nearly doubled in the <10 years I've lived on my own. It's not sustainable.

 

[TheGardener]

You can have an artesian well and avoid water charges coming into your home and for use on your property. But they get you on the other end, and assume that the discharge all goes into the sewerage system. That's why there are two charges on our water bills. Water and sewer.

 

[PowerEngineer]

So, you believe that if you produce the same amount that you use, you should have a bill of zero dollars? If you're willing to completely disconnect from the grid, I think you're right. But, if you think you can produce during the day and sell it to the electric company, and then use their energy at night - and they, not you, should pay for maintenance of all those distribution lines that make it possible... well, I disagree with you. $20/month to be connected to their system is a pretty good deal.

Well, I'm pleasantly surprised that most posters in this thread recognize why it's becoming necessary to explicitly charge customers for both infrastructure and energy. In the past (without significant amounts of customer-generated power) it made (some) sense to just increase the per-unit energy charge a bit to recoup the infrastructure costs. But with utilities allowing (and even encouraging) small scale renewable generation by customers, these infrastructure costs tend to get shifted onto those who aren't wealthy enough to afford the kind of upfront investment required. That's one reason why utilities and utility regulators are moving to separate energy and infrastructure charges. Avoids having the poor customers subsidize the rich customers.

Pretty much the same reason for movement toward time-of-day pricing to power delivered into the grid by customers (rather than net metering). If the utility overpays for the delivered power, it's the other customers who will pay the difference through higher energy rates.

It was relatively easy to ignore these inaccurate assignments of cost when the number of customers involved was minuscule (maybe even consider it an early adopter incentive), but the number of home solar installations are growing exponentially which makes the problem harder and harder to ignore.

You can have an artesian well and avoid water charges coming into your home and for use on your property. But they get you on the other end, and assume that the discharge all goes into the sewerage system. That's why there are two charges on our water bills. Water and sewer.

At least in this area, the sewer charges are allocated based on water usage in February. The rationale is that water used for grass/landscape irrigation does not end up in the sewer system.

 

[twinrider1]

Power Engineer. How do you think it will end? Seems like it is going to be like a bandage being pulled off slowly...long and painful.
Overall electrical sales are flat, even though new building continues. So we have even more infrastructure cost and no new revenue to cover it. And solar continues to advance.
I wonder if it will just be added to the property tax bill at some point.
Eventually, I think solar will improve to the point it is just another part of the new home build, along with hvac and plumbing. But I don't know about commercial use. Unless tech improves leaps and bounds, I don't know how heavy commercial users will get by without the grid.

 

[tortillasoup]

People who say minimum monthly charges are necessary to pay for the grid miss the point of net metering. You get a credit on your bill of upwards of $0.50 per KWH if you contribute during times of the day when the demand is highest and as little as $0.08 or less when the demand is low, so it's not illogical to think that your net contribution to the grid would be overall worth more than the cost of you being on the grid. In most electricity markets, there are spot prices for electricity that varies depending on demand and the time of day. But that credit is reduced down to $0.035 per KWH if you are a net producer of electricity.

The fact that net metering only gives Wholesale electricity rates to customers who over produce is basically theft. Wholesale electricity generation during peak hours isn't worth $0.035, it's certainly worth more than that. They basically have treated any over production to be worth exactly the same regardless of the time of day it's used. Consumers are only rewarded with net metering when they have high demand for electricity during off peak hours and low demand during peak demand.

The idea that someone could use 200KWH of electricity while contributing nothing will have a similar electric bill to someone who uses 0KWH of electricity due to net metering is ridiculous. The net metering laws benefit the utilities and screw the consumer. Meanwhile, the only people making money off of solar PV are those who go into actual electrical contractual agreements to sell power to the utility grid for far above the over production net metering rates of $0.035 per KWH.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The way I see it, unless they give you equal or more than your cost per kwh for net metering, then you are better off just storing the extra energy or dumping it into a load that can store energy, ex: heat/cooling. If you use extra power to cool the house more than you need now, then it will be a while before it needs to cool again, same with heat, fridge, freezer etc... Because if you sell it, you'll end up buying it back at a higher price anyway.

While I realize there are infrastructure costs involved, it's ridiculous how they play games with the delivery rates. If you use a lot of power you might only pay $20/mo for delivery, but if one month you don't use any power, then they'll just jack that up to over $100 to make sure your bill is not too cheap. You will never see a hydro bill that is under $100. They adjust all the other fees to ensure this. So the only way to really save money with solar is to disconnect completely. I've been toying with going solar myself but don't think I'd be able to produce enough to go off grid, but it would still be cool to do. It would work well in summer and I'd use zero hydro and probably be able to power my A/C unit. But for the rest of the year we don't get enough day light. Now if I could produce energy from the moon and stars... 😛

 

[tortillasoup]

Multijunction solar PV at the prices of today's solar is what would be needed for people to go off grid. Solar currently is too inefficient at this point so it takes up tremendous amount of space so it works great in the summer but crappy in the winter. I hate the way the utility companies have worked to stifle solar PV production and uptake because my dream would be for the suburban communities to produce excessive solar PV in order to feed the city so that there wouldn't be any need for power plant creation/generation.

 

[who?]

NPR did a story about California having more power from alternative sources than they know what to do with,they have an independent system that isn't connected to any other states power grid, and they have to keep the gas burning plants running in case clouds go in front of the sun and the solar production drops.

 

[Micrornd]

Ironically our power went out on Monday (No the solar panels do not produce electricity if the power is out).

Why?
Is the "switch" not smart enough to feed only the house on loss of "line"?
Or are there no batteries?

 

[Stopsignhank]

Why?
Is the "switch" not smart enough to feed only the house on loss of "line"?
Or are there no batteries?

When the lineman throws the switch to work on the line they need to make sure that the power is off. If any of the houses with solar are still producing power they could bleed power back into the line. As an industrial safety guy I completely agree with this.

I don't have batteries.

 

[DCal430]

People who say minimum monthly charges are necessary to pay for the grid miss the point of net metering. You get a credit on your bill of upwards of $0.50 per KWH if you contribute during times of the day when the demand is highest and as little as $0.08 or less when the demand is low, so it's not illogical to think that your net contribution to the grid would be overall worth more than the cost of you being on the grid. In most electricity markets, there are spot prices for electricity that varies depending on demand and the time of day. But that credit is reduced down to $0.035 per KWH if you are a net producer of electricity.

The fact that net metering only gives Wholesale electricity rates to customers who over produce is basically theft. Wholesale electricity generation during peak hours isn't worth $0.035, it's certainly worth more than that. They basically have treated any over production to be worth exactly the same regardless of the time of day it's used. Consumers are only rewarded with net metering when they have high demand for electricity during off peak hours and low demand during peak demand.

The idea that someone could use 200KWH of electricity while contributing nothing will have a similar electric bill to someone who uses 0KWH of electricity due to net metering is ridiculous. The net metering laws benefit the utilities and screw the consumer. Meanwhile, the only people making money off of solar PV are those who go into actual electrical contractual agreements to sell power to the utility grid for far above the over production net metering rates of $0.035 per KWH.

Actually here we use a Fixed + Metered Pricing, everyone pays the fixed price, which I think is fairer than minimum charge. Just wished the wholesale price was higher than 5cents, and the fixed cost was closer to $10 than $20.

Also people with solar are NOT producing it during peak times, peak time for electricity is from around 4 pm to 8 pm. Most solar is produced from 10am to 2pm, when demand is much lower.

My utility is also moving us to time of use in the next year or two, which actually makes solar more difficult as Peak Time here is defined at 4pm to 8pm and during the summer it is not likely I can produce enough to offset my high demand during those times. Summer here are also very hot and I like to keep my home at 77.

Also confounding the issue is we as a municipal electric company have one of the lowest rates in the state, so it makes solar even more difficult to justify. To be clear municipal means the electric company is a government entity.

 

[tortillasoup]

NPR did a story about California having more power from alternative sources than they know what to do with,they have an independent system that isn't connected to any other states power grid, and they have to keep the gas burning plants running in case clouds go in front of the sun and the solar production drops.

You're describing Texas, not California. Texas is the only state in the union with a power utility that does not connect to neighboring states. With the abundance of wind energy, there have been times, late at night with low demand where the spot price for electricity actually became negative.

 

[DCal430]

Multijunction solar PV at the prices of today's solar is what would be needed for people to go off grid. Solar currently is too inefficient at this point so it takes up tremendous amount of space so it works great in the summer but crappy in the winter. I hate the way the utility companies have worked to stifle solar PV production and uptake because my dream would be for the suburban communities to produce excessive solar PV in order to feed the city so that there wouldn't be any need for power plant creation/generation.

Again, this can't work because solar does NOT produce power during peak usage. Areas with high heat during the summer, the hottest time of the day is also when solar is near its lowest product level. From what I am reading, utilities are having an issue already with surging electrical use during the late afternoons combined with collapsing output from solar during the same time. In California in the summer peak usage happens at around 6 to 7, and in the winter it is 7 to 8. Solar output it is near its lowest at these times of day. This is wear I think batteries could be used, it would store the power when it is generated in the noon time, and pump it back to the homes and system in the late afternoon when demand is highest.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

What does a "infrastructure cost" allegedly cover? Is it a legitimate cost, or a "cause we can" charge? Getting paid wholesale rates should be expected. That would be like drilling oil on your property, and expecting a refiner to pay you retail.

I bet it is a fee for the consumer to use the power company's distribution system when power is back-fed into the utility's system. Seems fair.

For instance, a fee the utility company charges for distribution is one-way. Want to use it in the other direction? Then there is another fee. OK, so maybe this isn't fair if one looks at it from the law of opportunity cost:

If I pay a fee for the use of a distribution system in delivering power to my home from the utility company--and the utility company makes money in this direction--then they would not be able to do this when the system is back-feeding, and thus the utility company needs to address that potential loss in money making.

In either event, one of the biggest consumer obstacles in going PV is the fact they always look at it as a home improvement in the cost analysis. What should be done is the cost is embedded into the original mortgage along with any pre-contractual outlay for long-term maintenance and service for the life of the mortgage.

But is there any reason Californian consumers have to back-feed and instead just store for sunless times?

 

[who?]

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/06/47573...n-states-to-agree-on-sharing-renewable-energy

 

[tortillasoup]

Again, this can't work because solar does NOT produce power during peak usage. Areas with high heat during the summer, the hottest time of the day is also when solar is near its lowest product level. From what I am reading, utilities are having an issue already with surging electrical use during the late afternoons combined with collapsing output from solar during the same time. In California in the summer peak usage happens at around 6 to 7, and in the winter it is 7 to 8. Solar output it is near its lowest at these times of day. This is wear I think batteries could be used, it would store the power when it is generated in the noon time, and pump it back to the homes and system in the late afternoon when demand is highest.

That is why they're changing the TOU rate schedules due to there being so much solar PV. Peak times used to be in the middle of the day but aren't anymore. However, even so, middle of day would still be considered partial peak at least. The way the utility companies currently pay over producers electricity, they act as if their electricity has the same value as electricity at 3am on a Sunday which is bullshit. Electricity produced at 4pm on a Tuesday during a "smart day" certainly should be compensated for accordingly but it's not if you're overproducing.

 

[who?]

I would think that solar production would be at its lowest at 4 in the morning.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In summer the sun starts to come up at around 3:30-4:00, though not quite enough for solar to produce much, but it would probably start to produce a bit by 5-6 once it breaks the horizon. Then stop producing by 9-10pm or so.

We just hit the summer half way mark not too long ago though, so the days are going to start to get shorter.

 

[DrPizza]

When the lineman throws the switch to work on the line they need to make sure that the power is off. If any of the houses with solar are still producing power they could bleed power back into the line. As an industrial safety guy I completely agree with this.

I don't have batteries.

Hello, I am from the future. We invented something called a "transfer switch" which isolates the house from the line in, in case power is lost from utilities. People from the future will be required to use it when they have a back-up generator wired to their house.

Oh wait. Never mind. I thought I was having deja vu or something. It's not 1960, right?

 

[Eli]

^^ 😀

Yeah, island protection is standard (by law) these days.

In summer the sun starts to come up at around 3:30-4:00, though not quite enough for solar to produce much, but it would probably start to produce a bit by 5-6 once it breaks the horizon. Then stop producing by 9-10pm or so.

We just hit the summer half way mark not too long ago though, so the days are going to start to get shorter.

Except for the whole "sun rises in the east, sets in the west" thing... 😉

You might get 12 hours of power if you have a tracking array, but almost nobody has that luxury. Figure 6 hours of peak power...

 

[PowerEngineer]

Power Engineer. How do you think it will end? Seems like it is going to be like a bandage being pulled off slowly...long and painful.
Overall electrical sales are flat, even though new building continues. So we have even more infrastructure cost and no new revenue to cover it. And solar continues to advance.
I wonder if it will just be added to the property tax bill at some point.
Eventually, I think solar will improve to the point it is just another part of the new home build, along with hvac and plumbing. But I don't know about commercial use. Unless tech improves leaps and bounds, I don't know how heavy commercial users will get by without the grid.

End? I'm not sure there will be an end, at least not in the foreseeable future. My guess is that the string of technology improvements in solar energy and storage will continue, and the speed and nature of these improvements will continue to "disrupt" our picture of what a utility is and should be. Even if we reach a 100% renewable future, I suspect their unpredictable, intermittent nature will continue to put a value on spreading their outputs over larger load areas through bidirectional use of the distribution and transmission infrastructure. Remember that this is at best an educated guess...

People who say minimum monthly charges are necessary to pay for the grid miss the point of net metering. You get a credit on your bill of upwards of $0.50 per KWH if you contribute during times of the day when the demand is highest and as little as $0.08 or less when the demand is low, so it's not illogical to think that your net contribution to the grid would be overall worth more than the cost of you being on the grid. In most electricity markets, there are spot prices for electricity that varies depending on demand and the time of day. But that credit is reduced down to $0.035 per KWH if you are a net producer of electricity.

The fact that net metering only gives Wholesale electricity rates to customers who over produce is basically theft. Wholesale electricity generation during peak hours isn't worth $0.035, it's certainly worth more than that. They basically have treated any over production to be worth exactly the same regardless of the time of day it's used. Consumers are only rewarded with net metering when they have high demand for electricity during off peak hours and low demand during peak demand.

The idea that someone could use 200KWH of electricity while contributing nothing will have a similar electric bill to someone who uses 0KWH of electricity due to net metering is ridiculous. The net metering laws benefit the utilities and screw the consumer. Meanwhile, the only people making money off of solar PV are those who go into actual electrical contractual agreements to sell power to the utility grid for far above the over production net metering rates of $0.035 per KWH.

Not sure where you live, but $0.50/kWh ($500/MWh) is way, way too high. Are you sure you haven't slipped a decimal point? Spot energy prices in the West are closer to a tenth of that (thanks in large part to fracking and the cheap price for natural gas).

Last week's peak prices ranged from $20/MWh ($0.020/kWh) to $65/MWh ($0.065/kWh); off-peak prices were half that. And it was a hot week in southern California.

Frankly, an average price of $0.035/kWh for net metered energy might be a pretty fair valuation of its value. And IMHO you still need to pay an infrastructure charge for the use of the infrastructure when your instantaneous "net" isn't zero.

My two cents...

 

[Brovane]

Why?
Is the "switch" not smart enough to feed only the house on loss of "line"?
Or are there no batteries?

Some newer Solar inverters have a option of a bypass outlet. I have two SMA inverters that where installed last year. They have what is called a Secure Power Supply, which is a outlet feed from the inverter that can provide up to 1500 watts of power as long as the sun is shinning. They will not energize the wiring in your house but in a pinch you could run a extension cord and plug into them if the sun was shinning and your power was out.

http://russellpacific.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SecurePS-US-TB-en-11.pdf

 

[tortillasoup]

End? I'm not sure there will be an end, at least not in the foreseeable future. My guess is that the string of technology improvements in solar energy and storage will continue, and the speed and nature of these improvements will continue to "disrupt" our picture of what a utility is and should be. Even if we reach a 100% renewable future, I suspect their unpredictable, intermittent nature will continue to put a value on spreading their outputs over larger load areas through bidirectional use of the distribution and transmission infrastructure. Remember that this is at best an educated guess...



Not sure where you live, but $0.50/kWh ($500/MWh) is way, way too high. Are you sure you haven't slipped a decimal point? Spot energy prices in the West are closer to a tenth of that (thanks in large part to fracking and the cheap price for natural gas).

Last week's peak prices ranged from $20/MWh ($0.020/kWh) to $65/MWh ($0.065/kWh); off-peak prices were half that. And it was a hot week in southern California.

Frankly, an average price of $0.035/kWh for net metered energy might be a pretty fair valuation of its value. And IMHO you still need to pay an infrastructure charge for the use of the infrastructure when your instantaneous "net" isn't zero.

My two cents...

On E-6 TOU in the third tier, during peak hours in summer, rates can easily reach $0.50 per KWH. If you have Smart Rate, they reach $0.60 per KWH during the designated hours.

The only scenario I can think of when $0.035 per KWH is a reasonable price for electricity is when that electricity is produced at 7am on a Sunday. Otherwise, it's really an undervaluation for the electricity. Remember, PGE has agreements in place for solar PV generation where for every KWH produced, regardless of time of day, you get $0.20 per KWH. Should have signed up for the generator credit instead of the NEM credit as I'm a net producer.

 

[PowerEngineer]

On E-6 TOU in the third tier, during peak hours in summer, rates can easily reach $0.50 per KWH. If you have Smart Rate, they reach $0.60 per KWH during the designated hours.

The only scenario I can think of when $0.035 per KWH is a reasonable price for electricity is when that electricity is produced at 7am on a Sunday. Otherwise, it's really an undervaluation for the electricity. Remember, PGE has agreements in place for solar PV generation where for every KWH produced, regardless of time of day, you get $0.20 per KWH. Should have signed up for the generator credit instead of the NEM credit as I'm a net producer.

I'm not familiar with PG&E tariffs, but have to guess that prices like that have to be tied to some sort of "avoided cost" estimate that supposedly takes into account traditional power plant building costs. Whatever the reason, the energy itself that is being delivered to PG&E just isn't worth anywhere near that. IMHO PG&E and other utilities (along with their regulators) need to think carefully about how much of a premium over the market energy value they should pay for solar energy that exceeds the customer's own demand. As I said earlier, the burden for overpaying has to be made up through higher rates to a utility's other customers. And the stakes get higher as more solar gets installed.