Could this be what is coming for everyone one net metering?

[h2ofun]

Indiana regulators slash a net metering rate, advise solar owners to buy a battery

One installer said the ruling would extend payback periods to as long as 25 years and effectively dry up new business in southwest Indiana.

pv-magazine-usa.com

And some think NEM3 might not change much in Calif? Shall see. Batteries are really the only way to deal with, but still no ROI, IMO

 

[jboy210]

Indiana regulators slash a net metering rate, advise solar owners to buy a battery

One installer said the ruling would extend payback periods to as long as 25 years and effectively dry up new business in southwest Indiana.

pv-magazine-usa.com

And some think NEM3 might not change much in Calif? Shall see. Batteries are really the only way to deal with, but still no ROI, IMO

Maybe we need to start sending messages to DC to get the Feds to protect solar. Seems some state legislators and agencies are letting power companies do everything they can to kill solar as an alternative to using the power from the grid.

 

[charlesj]

PG&E pays about the same 3 cents per kWh. Since I generate more at end of year than I use, while the payback is low, my break even has not changed, and am at that point, 9 years. So, from here on out, I am $$$ ahead.

Maybe Indiana needs to be forced to have a Community type power arrangement but that requires a law and most likely it will not pass in IN, not yet.

 

[skepticcyclist]

SoCal Edison pays whole sale to the customer for all excess electricity produced. Whole sale fore the whole year is based on the whole sale value at the monthly whole sale price your annual cycle begins. Net metering is 1 to 1 for consumption and use only. We pay the net difference at the TOU rate at the end of the year if we use more than we send back during those hours. We get back only whole sale value of net produced regardless of when it is produced. This is why a battery makes makes it more cost effective. I don't use the grid at all during peak and can send all solar produced during this time to the grid. If I need to use the grid I can do so only during off peak time at a lower rate.

So if I use 100 kWh hours for the year during peak time and send back 150 kWh hours during this same peak time, I will only get 50 kWh x whole sale price in return. But if I use 200 kWh and send back 150 kWh, then I would have to pay the the peak price for these additional kWh.

The same is true for off peak price. If I use 100 kWh and send back 150 kWh during off peak I still only get the whole sale price. But if I use 50 kWh more than I send back then I would have to pay 50 kWh x off peak price.

 

[CrazyRabbit]

if the consumer doesn't agree, they need to pass laws that allow something more equitable... or as much as i hate it, carbon credits where fossil fuel plants have to purchase offsets...

 

[wwu123]

PG&E pays about the same 3 cents per kWh. Since I generate more at end of year than I use, while the payback is low, my break even has not changed, and am at that point, 9 years. So, from here on out, I am $$$ ahead.

Maybe Indiana needs to be forced to have a Community type power arrangement but that requires a law and most likely it will not pass in IN, not yet.

The 3 cents you're talking about is only for excess at annual true-up, PG&E NEM1 and NEM2 (mostly) still give 1:1 retail rates. I don't have any annual excess, I'm a net consumer. But 3000 kwh of my 5000 kwh annual production is exported to the grid, and imported later at 1:1 rates.

If PG&E followed Indiana and axes NEM, then 60% of my annual production would be credited at 3 cents rather than the 25 cents or so I'm getting from NEM1... so PG&E is a bit better than Indiana at the present time. I hit my payback period last year on my 7-year old system too, so any savings from here out is gravy as well. However, I'd still like to have more gravy than less gravy...

 

[h2ofun]

The 3 cents you're talking about is only for excess at annual true-up, PG&E NEM1 and NEM2 (mostly) still give 1:1 retail rates. I don't have any annual excess, I'm a net consumer. But 3000 kwh of my 5000 kwh annual production is exported to the grid, and imported later at 1:1 rates.

If PG&E followed Indiana and axes NEM, then 60% of my annual production would be credited at 3 cents rather than the 25 cents or so I'm getting from NEM1... so PG&E is a bit better than Indiana at the present time. I hit my payback period last year on my 7-year old system too, so any savings from here out is gravy as well. However, I'd still like to have more gravy than less gravy...

The only plus with the Indiana law is seems the impact is only for new customers? This is why I am trying to see about putting more solar on this year assuming that NEM 1 and 2 will be left alone for their 20 year period.

 

[charlesj]

The only plus with the Indiana law is seems the impact is only for new customers? This is why I am trying to see about putting more solar on this year assuming that NEM 1 and 2 will be left alone for their 20 year period.

Yes, of course. Old customers are grandfathered by law.
But, adding more, at least with PG&E depends on your annual usage +10% or was when I got my panels. Unless they would switch me to a whole different rate if I would over generate by a lot with the new addition if they will even allow it.
Isn't all this anti competitive and against federal laws?

 

[h2ofun]

Yes, of course. Old customers are grandfathered by law.
But, adding more, at least with PG&E depends on your annual usage +10% or was when I got my panels. Unless they would switch me to a whole different rate if I would over generate by a lot with the new addition if they will even allow it.
Isn't all this anti competitive and against federal laws?

Yep, got to go through the approval process. I have a couple options. Within the last 3 years I used 40,000kwh in a year. I have 5 batteries and at 5K per, thats 25KW. And if I want to add 2 EV's. So, will see what any of these do. My existing was approved with a -20,000 calculation.

 

[bevo]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There must not be a strong solar proponent in Indiana as it's apparent that the regulators fully bought into the biased statistics the utilities were presenting.
Basically, they are saying there is no additional benefit to solar generation beyond the wholesale cost of electricity. What about the fact that the utilities will get to spend less in capital for new generation since solar is adding capacity or that it's better to generate power closer to where it's needed or that you have to incentivize clean energy to reach your goals?
The closer you are to reaching your goals, maybe reduce the incentives but to say that solar is only beneficial at wholesale prices today is short sighted.

 

[wwu123]

Yes, of course. Old customers are grandfathered by law.
But, adding more, at least with PG&E depends on your annual usage +10% or was when I got my panels. Unless they would switch me to a whole different rate if I would over generate by a lot with the new addition if they will even allow it.
Isn't all this anti competitive and against federal laws?

I wouldn't say it's "of course", both NEM and grandfathering are only by law until the lawmakers decide differently. Nevada killed NEM in 2015 without any grandfathering, and only recently is making some moves to bring some form of NEM back for both old and new solar customers.

The Indiana article does suggest the new rates only apply to future customers, so sounds like there will be grandfathering in that case.

 

[charlesj]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There must not be a strong solar proponent in Indiana as it's apparent that the regulators fully bought into the biased statistics the utilities were presenting.
Basically, they are saying there is no additional benefit to solar generation beyond the wholesale cost of electricity. What about the fact that the utilities will get to spend less in capital for new generation since solar is adding capacity or that it's better to generate power closer to where it's needed or that you have to incentivize clean energy to reach your goals?
The closer you are to reaching your goals, maybe reduce the incentives but to say that solar is only beneficial at wholesale prices today is short sighted.

But, but, I don't think Indiana is into clean energy yet.

Also, solar would help industrial high demands in the daytime. And, they would sell your extra daytime production at premium while you get peanuts.

 

[charlesj]

I wouldn't say it's "of course", both NEM and grandfathering are only by law until the lawmakers decide differently. Nevada killed NEM in 2015 without any grandfathering, and only recently is making some moves to bring some form of NEM back for both old and new solar customers.

The Indiana article does suggest the new rates only apply to future customers, so sounds like there will be grandfathering in that case.

While it may apply to new customers, as you stated, laws can be changed with that too.

 

[NorCalSlrUser]

Utilities should increase the NBC a bit so they can make profit from that, while still keeping the payback period reasonable. It is very nice to use the utility as a battery as no other battery will store energy from summer to winter, so I don’t mind paying something to rent that battery.

 

[brian.c]

Utilities should increase the NBC a bit so they can make profit from that, while still keeping the payback period reasonable. It is very nice to use the utility as a battery as no other battery will store energy from summer to winter, so I don’t mind paying something to rent that battery.

This is what I am hoping for. I am worried about the monthly fees that are being suggested. We are adding additional panels to charge the car, and supply 100% of our energy during the daylight hours. We plan to eliminate heavy usage at night or low producing times. I am currently in NEM 1, but with the addition of the second system we will be moved to NEM 2, so will do my best to shift usage to daytime hours. Batteries are in my future, but not likely until I see a better ROI.

 

[txzaza]

If net metering becomes un-profitable consider adding a battery and using excess energy to mine Bitcoin. Seriously.

 

[holeydonut]

While it may apply to new customers, as you stated, laws can be changed with that too.

Yeah, grandfathering the NBCs and NEM rules is slightly different (but probably all connected) than the grandfathering of Time of Use periods and rates.

The NEM 1.0 to NEM 2.0 transition gave a 20 year grandfathering for the NBCs and tariffs.
Time of Use Periods were only grandfathered for 5 years.
Time of Use Rates have no grandfathering and can be fenagled for anyone at any time regardless of grandfathering.

I contend the Time of Use shifting has much more impact to the reasonableness of solar-only installations. The CPUC and PoCos assert that homeowners can modify their daily usage "for free" by shifting activities out of peak time. But the pragmaticism of that is suspect, and I find it hard to believe a typical household can cook dinner at 2pm and do the laundry at midnight. This is especially true for people on the EV rate plans, where the penalty for using electric appliances during peak time is ruinous to the economics of a solar-only install.

When installed alongside solar, batteries allow someone to become agnostic to TOU, which I believe will become more and more important in the coming years as the CPUC keeps amending TOU times and rates.

 

[getakey]

I'm all for solar and have both PV and PWs.
That said, the Net metering we have has been a sweet deal. PG&E gives us retail credit and then sells it to others at the same price. There is no profit for them. For every other power source, they make a profit. So while Net metering has allowed me to have an extremely fast ROI, I can see the other side. Further, PG&E and other utilities must have idle capacity available when the sun don't shine. Without a large supply of batteries, the utility must have a 1:1 capacity to generate power for every PV kW in place.

Seems like a portion of Retail for Net Metering is reasonable. I'd rather have that than more NBCs

 

[skepticcyclist]

I'm all for solar and have both PV and PWs.
That said, the Net metering we have has been a sweet deal. PG&E gives us retail credit and then sells it to others at the same price. There is no profit for them. For every other power source, they make a profit. So while Net metering has allowed me to have an extremely fast ROI, I can see the other side. Further, PG&E and other utilities must have idle capacity available when the sun don't shine. Without a large supply of batteries, the utility must have a 1:1 capacity to generate power for every PV kW in place.

Seems like a portion of Retail for Net Metering is reasonable. I'd rather have that than more NBCs

Edison doesn't give retail credit, only whole sale. More specifically, retail credit is only give to us to match what we consume. If we consume what we produce, then it is a wash. Excess production is credited to us at a whole sale value at true up. Excess use is charged to us at a retail price at true up

 

[RKCRLR]

I don't have a problem with NBCs and TOU rates as long as they are proportional to the utilities' actual cost.
If it costs the utility to store electricity and maintain the infrastructure, then pass those costs on as reasonable NBCs.
If it costs the utility more to provide power during certain times of the day then pass those costs on as reasonable TOU rates.
Let the system find it's own equilibrium but don't have all these different rates depending on the configuration. The charges should be proportional to the utility costs with a reasonable profit.