Are solar panels really worth it?

[bkp_duke]

How are California rates sooooo high but people still defend the utilities? The energy guide yellow stickers assume the national average rate of like $0.13 per kWh. So is California really 4x better to the environment vs the 49 other states?

I would post a political comment as part of my answer here, but I don't think it would be well received.

Let's just say that before I moved to CA, I lived in TX for 10 years. TX actually has an open power market where you can choose your power provider (Power To Choose | Home). Basically, your bill each month consists of 2 charges (but it is still just one bill) - one to the people that maintain the transmission network (poles and wires), and the other to the company that generates power.

You never see TX have rolling blackouts, and AC usage is MUCH higher than here in CA. Also, the power mix is very heavily renewable (much less solar, but much much more wind).

I never paid more than 10c/kwh when I lived in TX, and usually paid 7-8c/kwh.


Free market, with providers left to compete with each other as they should, and otherwise government stays out of it.

VS.

Government-regulated system that "determines" power rates based upon what the power providers "request".



Which one do you think is more efficient, both in terms of production, and in terms of the product that the consumers receive?

 

[jjrandorin]

Just curious, does SoCal have true net metering. That is you get paid the same per kW as it cost to buy that kW from the utility?

Like @bkp_duke said, it depends on if you are on NEM1.0 or not (grandfathered in) and which plan you are on. For me specifically, I am on NEM 1.0 and on an old stile "tiered" plan, where the more electricity you use in total, the more the utility charges you. I have 3 tiers on my plan. The price per kWh has gone up on my plan multiple times, and the charges are currently 21c (up to what they define as your "baseline", 27c from 100-400% of "baseline" and 33 cents from 400+ of "baseline".

The "baseline" is how much electricity they give you at the lowest rate, and pretty low but varies by region. For me, in summer, its 18.9 kWh a day...from june - september, and I have 2 AC units, each of which consume 4kWh of energy every HOUR of operation (the AC units installed from the builder on my home, built in 2005).

My home consumes about .5 kWhs of energy an hour, in the middle of the night when no one is awake, so the baseline basically would be enough to only run my home if no one was ever home.

I do have true 1:1 net metering and almost no "non bypassable charges" though, so if I can keep my electricity usage inside of tier 1 rates, I have full 1:1 net metering... and with solar Installed since 2015 I have been able to do that, so no tier 2 or 3 charges (well maybe one month a year, on average during the hottest months), and I normally have banked credits to cover that one outlying month).

I have not changed to any of the TOU plans that SCE has "gratiously" offered me, as even their modeling shows that I would pay somewhere between 900 to 1100 more per year. Three separate occasions I was "randomly chosen to participate in a trial rate, if you do nothing you will automatically be enrolled in this rate", and I had to call / write letters etc to tell them I wanted to reject it. They kept telling me it was random, but I didnt believe it

Online also has that BS "efficient homes near you" graph which shows me being in the middle of the usage spectrum, even though for large portions of most months i consume NO electricity from SCE. The only way homes could be more "efficient" than mine is to basically be running 100% off grid.. for the year I am almost 85% self powered from the tesla app, and I dont think the average home in my area is just as "efficient" as mine from grid usage heh...

Sorry , I am blabbing now.... But yeah I have full net metering 1:1 but only would get paid at wholesale rates at the true up if you generate more than you consume (net generation vs net consumer).

 

[holeydonut]

Free market, with providers left to compete with each other as they should, and otherwise government stays out of it.
VS.
Government-regulated system that "determines" power rates based upon what the power providers "request".
Which one do you think is more efficient, both in terms of production, and in terms of the product that the consumers receive?

Yeah, and the absolute worst part of California's CPUC energy providers is how they try to blame the homeowners for terrible energy use if the homeowner's bill is high. I posted about this in that Water Heater thread, but I could not believe it when PG&E sent ME letters in the mail and left voice mails about how I was in the "worst" percentile for energy use in the state. They told me I needed to take steps to get MY act together. They're gaslighting me into thinking they're totally fine, and I'm the problem when my energy use is on par with similar single family homes across the USA's sun-belt.

Yet somehow people in my neighborhood continue to defend PG&E. They'll tell me stuff like "well at least you didn't get blown up by faulty gas lines right? You gotta pay for that type of service." I thought they were being sarcastic at first, but they legit now believe PG&E propaganda that our utilities incurs 4x national average costs to keep us safe. It's so bad most of my neighbors refuse to run their ACs to keep their energy costs down because otherwise they'll draw the ire of PG&E. So they're sitting at home with 80F+ indoor temps to keep their bills low.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yeah, and the absolute worst part of California's CPUC energy providers is how they try to blame the homeowners for terrible energy use if the homeowner's bill is high. I posted about this in that Water Heater thread, but I could not believe it when PG&E sent ME letters in the mail and left voice mails about how I was in the "worst" percentile for energy use in the state. They told me I needed to take steps to get MY act together. They're gaslighting me into thinking they're totally fine, and I'm the problem when my energy use is on par with similar single family homes across the USA's sun-belt.

Yet somehow people in my neighborhood continue to defend PG&E. They'll tell me stuff like "well at least you didn't get blown up by faulty gas lines right? You gotta pay for that type of service." I thought they were being sarcastic at first, but they legit now believe PG&E propaganda that our utilities incurs 4x national average costs to keep us safe. It's so bad most of my neighbors refuse to run their ACs to keep their energy costs down because otherwise they'll draw the ire of PG&E. So they're sitting at home with 80F+ indoor temps to keep their bills low.

Energy production in our state is F-d up.

I'm 100% behind getting over to renewables as quickly as possible, but CPUC has made some seriously bone-headed mistakes like decommissioning nuclear plants before renewable replacements were in place. Guess what replaced those? Gas peaker plants.

The stance that CA utilities take on solar now is ironic. 20 years ago when there were rolling blackouts due to summer heatwaves, the utilities were all about residential solar, and incentives for it, since it would give the extra power on the grid during the highest peak usage. Now that residential solar is prevalent and we are dealing with the "duck curve", they do everything they can to discourage it


The utilities have ZERO incentive to be efficient in CA. They don't have any competition.


In the end, the dumbassary behavior by CPUC and the utilities is going to push residents that can afford it to solar + on-site battery to be as self-sufficient as possible. This will further reduce the utilities revenue base, and cause them to try to increase prices further. It's a viscous cycle that they have gotten themselves into and apparently no one can see the end result down the road.

 

[wjgjr]

Let's just say that before I moved to CA, I lived in TX for 10 years. TX actually has an open power market where you can choose your power provider (Power To Choose | Home). Basically, your bill each month consists of 2 charges (but it is still just one bill) - one to the people that maintain the transmission network (poles and wires), and the other to the company that generates power.

MD actually has that as well, though there is one important caveat for anybody with solar, which is that you typically lose out on net metering when going with a third party (not sure if it might be possible to get an agreement with a supplier who will pay out, but certainly not the norm.) This seems to be pretty common in states that have supplier choice programs. So, while it can save money for people without solar (and probably does help keep all rates down in the stae,) it is something those of us with solar may not be able to directly use, even where our solar doesn't cover all of our usage.

 

[holeydonut]

Lol our rant about CPUC and the utilities kind of took things off topic on this thread.

To @Carbonfiber, in California, yes Solar is totally worth it since energy costs are skyrocketing in this state as our utilities fail left and right to responsibly deploy their monopolistic charters without taking huge amount of your money while making select people rich. With the federal tax incentive rapidly declining in the coming years, if you can get solar this year you'll be looking pretty good.

But solar by itself may not be enough to dodge the BS from the CPUC. Adding Powerwalls (or other battery solution) is necessary to make sure you benefit from your own clean energy without getting hit by the CPUC slam-boni.

California has some of the worst "net energy metering" (NEM) laws in the USA with regard to time of use policies for new solar customers. This was designed to allow the utilities to get more money from the people who install residential solar since the solar-enabled house is taking profits from the utility. Solar-enabled homes will generate daytime energy at low rates per kWh while taking expensive energy after the sun sets. So even if the home were net-zero from a kWh standpoint, it will likely have true-ups since the net cost per kWh will not be the same under NEM 3.0 rules.

 

[Southpasfan]

The reason that solar and powerwalls "work" is actually related to utility costs, but in a way I didn't appreciate until chatting with a pal who is trying to get a very large renewables project off the ground. (in of all places Texas)

If you look, and its nowhere near as tough a search as BrettS figuring out his panel layout, you can see that the cost of energy is about the same across the country, give or take 3 cents a Kwh. That has two interesting basic consequences. First, if anyone is wondering why its hard to get large renewable projects done, its becuase such a project has to come in under the 3 cents price point. Second, if anyone is wondering whether residential solar plus powerwalls is "worth it" the answer is "yes" because all we have to do is beat the retail price point, which for me in LADWP territory is 20 cents per kwh.

Well, we strayed into "hold on a second, what is that 17 cents for? (20 cents minus the 3 cents cost). I frankly don't think "competition" has much to do with it, I think its that maintaining the distribution system, and all the employees to maintain it, and the entire billing and collection system costs more than the electricity itself, and moreover such costs are extremely dependent on things like geography (flat Texas v. California with mountain range in it), local wages, local costs of facilities (based on land value) etc. etc. etc.

I don't by the way, subscribe to the "they are trying to screw us on the net metering" line of thought. I could be wrong, but the vast majority of residential solar and powerwalls are actually very, very much not only tied to the grid but (in the case of every single customer without battery back up) but reliant upon the grid. Since we know that most of the cost is not the electricity, but maintaining the grid, when, for example I put my system on line I will be distorting the economics of the system. I will basically be continuing to use the grid but not paying for much of it.

 

[BrettS]

If you look, and its nowhere near as tough a search as BrettS figuring out his panel layout

Is this now going to be the standard against which difficult things are to be judged?

Although tbh it actually wasn’t nearly as difficult as I was afraid it might be. Maybe a little time consuming, but not really difficult. Although my neighbors might think I’m a little crazy if they watched me walking around on my roof with my phone duct taped to the end of a pool pole.

 

[bkp_duke]

Well, we strayed into "hold on a second, what is that 17 cents for? (20 cents minus the 3 cents cost). I frankly don't think "competition" has much to do with it, I think its that maintaining the distribution system, and all the employees to maintain it, and the entire billing and collection system costs more than the electricity itself, and moreover such costs are extremely dependent on things like geography (flat Texas v. California with mountain range in it), local wages, local costs of facilities (based on land value) etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but I disagree with this.

If you look at Sempra Energy (the owners of SDG&E), they are one of the most profitable power companies in the US.

Sure, there is some variance in labor costs, and I would even grant you that SDG&E has higher infrastructure costs than most because of the 3 majors power producers in CA they have invested the most in underground power lines (higher up front deployment costs, but much lower running costs because they trim far less trees), but their total costs are not that much higher. They simply make a @#$% ton of money, to put it mildly.

 

[Merrill]

The reason that solar and powerwalls "work" is actually related to utility costs, but in a way I didn't appreciate until chatting with a pal who is trying to get a very large renewables project off the ground. (in of all places Texas)

If you look, and its nowhere near as tough a search as BrettS figuring out his panel layout, you can see that the cost of energy is about the same across the country, give or take 3 cents a Kwh. That has two interesting basic consequences. First, if anyone is wondering why its hard to get large renewable projects done, its becuase such a project has to come in under the 3 cents price point. Second, if anyone is wondering whether residential solar plus powerwalls is "worth it" the answer is "yes" because all we have to do is beat the retail price point, which for me in LADWP territory is 20 cents per kwh.

Well, we strayed into "hold on a second, what is that 17 cents for? (20 cents minus the 3 cents cost). I frankly don't think "competition" has much to do with it, I think its that maintaining the distribution system, and all the employees to maintain it, and the entire billing and collection system costs more than the electricity itself, and moreover such costs are extremely dependent on things like geography (flat Texas v. California with mountain range in it), local wages, local costs of facilities (based on land value) etc. etc. etc.

I don't by the way, subscribe to the "they are trying to screw us on the net metering" line of thought. I could be wrong, but the vast majority of residential solar and powerwalls are actually very, very much not only tied to the grid but (in the case of every single customer without battery back up) but reliant upon the grid. Since we know that most of the cost is not the electricity, but maintaining the grid, when, for example I put my system on line I will be distorting the economics of the system. I will basically be continuing to use the grid but not paying for much of it.

Some of what you say is true but when a monopoly out of control makes billions and where did that money go. Certainly not to maintain the infrastructure you talk about, also they market that they want you to save money on your bill yet try to screw you when you do have solar.

 

[holeydonut]

Some of what you say is true but when a monopoly out of control makes billions and where did that money go. Certainly not to maintain the infrastructure you talk about, also they market that they want you to save money on your bill yet try to screw you when you do have solar.

I second this notion... on paper the need for utilities to be monopolies makes sense due to the requirements of the common good. The utilities need some protection in order to make requisite investments to ensure everyone has resilient access that may not be able to occur under a free market system.

But in practice, PG&E and other California public works got out of control eating out of the fat free-money troughs. So yes, they took billions to try and honor this pact with taxpayers in the state. But it should be obvious that CPUC failed to make the proper smart investments to manage the supply of energy. Their system is not resilient, safe, or reliable compared to the other 49 states. It's clear they squandered way too much money on lobbying and stupid investments and keep wanting more and more money to cover their idiocy.

The other 49 states don't have perfect systems either; but whatever BS they do have seems to work ok, but at one third the cost of California.

 

[bkp_duke]

I second this notion... on paper the need for utilities to be monopolies makes sense due to the requirements of the common good. The utilities need some protection in order to make requisite investments to ensure everyone has resilient access that may not be able to occur under a free market system.

But in practice, PG&E and other California public works got out of control eating out of the fat free-money troughs. So yes, they took billions to try and honor this pact with taxpayers in the state. But it should be obvious that CPUC failed to make the proper smart investments to manage the supply of energy. Their system is not resilient, safe, or reliable compared to the other 49 states. It's clear they squandered way too much money on lobbying and stupid investments and keep wanting more and more money to cover their idiocy.

The other 49 states don't have perfect systems either; but whatever BS they do have seems to work ok, but at one third the cost of California.

I like what TX did. They decoupled the companies that maintain the poles + wires from the companies that produce the power. The transmission companies are tightly regulated and cannot raise rates on a whim. The producers have to compete with each other for customers in the marketplace and this competition drives down power prices.

 

[Alonzo]

I like what TX did. They decoupled the companies that maintain the poles + wires from the companies that produce the power. The transmission companies are tightly regulated and cannot raise rates on a whim. The producers have to compete with each other for customers in the marketplace and this competition drives down power prices.

This is true for some areas. I'm east of Houston. We only have one electric power company, Entergy. There are no choices of other companies. HOWEVER, if I understand it correctly, Entergy has to petition the Public Utility Commission for rate increase. Fuel costs are separated out and the rate is set per a prevailing standard. Bottom line is we pay about $.11 kwh after taxes and fees. Our rates are very stable.

 

[bkp_duke]

This is true for some areas. I'm east of Houston. We only have one electric power company, Entergy. There are no choices of other companies. HOWEVER, if I understand it correctly, Entergy has to petition the Public Utility Commission for rate increase. Fuel costs are separated out and the rate is set per a prevailing standard. Bottom line is we pay about $.11 kwh after taxes and fees. Our rates are very stable.

Correct, it's most of TX, but not all:
No Deposit Electricity Coverage Map Texas

 

[dirkbike1]

My 2 cents:
My 5k system generates approximately $1000/year.
What do you think is a reasonable cost for this outcome?

 

[Alonzo]

My 2 cents:
My 5k system generates approximately $1000/year.
What do you think is a reasonable cost for this outcome?

$12,000 to $15,000? What do I win?

 

[Southpasfan]

Well, I know one thing, a committee of posters on this board would have the technical and practical ability to solve many a problem.

I also know that now I went down a bit of a rabbit hole, and I don't want to go further.

However, if you are so inclined google something like "why are California electricity rates high?" and you will see some interesting stuff (well, to me anyway).

1. California is in the top ten in states as to rates. The rest of the top ten seem fairly co-ordinated with the top most expensive states overall, so do with that what you will.

2. California is also deregulated, like Texas. So its not that. By the way, "deregulated" means separating production, transmission, and end service to retail consumers into different companies. Not sure if that's useful to us, but there it is.

3. California put many eggs into the basket of "decreasing usage" -- which, when you think about it, results in higher rates. California seems to be in the bottom five states (most efficient) in electricity used per person. Less electricity used with the same need for transmission infrastructure means higher rates, although not necissarily higher costs. By one source I saw, the average person in Tennessee seems to use three times the electricity as someone in CA, and the average rate may only be half as much.

4. Becuase California mandated use of renewables before most other states, it is stuck with some long term contracts on old technology (plants) and so it pays more for 2020 renewable energy as opposed to states which adopted renewables later.

I now know more than I wanted to know, so its back to BrettS's method of identifying each panel!!

 

[bkp_duke]

2. California is also deregulated, like Texas. So its not that. By the way, "deregulated" means separating production, transmission, and end service to retail consumers into different companies. Not sure if that's useful to us, but there it is.

I do not agree with this point. Here in San Diego, the transmission and production company is the same SDG&E / Sempra Energy.

 

[Southpasfan]

see below -- again, that does not mean that SDG& E is not a "monopoly" as far as the end consumer is concerned, but it is already deregulated in that it buys power from other companies.

SDG&E Is Looking to Leave the Power-Buying Business - Voice of San Diego.

 

[bkp_duke]

see below -- again, that does not mean that SDG& E is not a "monopoly" as far as the end consumer is concerned, but it is already deregulated in that it buys power from other companies.

SDG&E Is Looking to Leave the Power-Buying Business - Voice of San Diego.

I think the key difference is that the TX deregulation allows the end users to pick their power provider. They therefore shop for lowest rates.

With CA, you must purchase power through whoever controls the transmission lines, and they do not pass any potential savings on to the customer.