NET METERING; Four reasons "Net-Metering" is no longer our friend...

[SeminoleFSU]

Great blog post and really cleared up some of the TOU questions I had- and also why it seems (at least here in GA) that residential solar has gotten a little less attractive in the past few years than it used to be.. I think it is because of some of the funny business tezco has described, and also the net metering changes originally mentioned by nwdiver. I'm talking to installers now looking at possibly doing a 10 kw system.. would love to cover the car and the house and net as close to zero as possible... they don't make it as easy as it used to be though.

Gotta love the corporatism.

 

[Joer293]

Unethical business is always going to be a concern, but if you want to learn some of the technological problems of the grid, watch this video by the guys at Tesla. There are some real issues to be dealt with, but it sounds like your power companies are driving the argument towards their solution, only they have more data and you don't know the options they have.

http://youtu.be/zWSox7mLbyE

 

[nwdiver]

You analogy of the toll bridge is flat wrong.

This has been addressed... for obvious reasons we can't ALL use a resource (the grid) that isn't free... for free... at low levels of Solar PV penetration this is irrelevant but the objective is 100% renewables.

Roberts bridge analogy is only applicable to Distributed Generation customers that ARE NOT net 'Positive'. If you Produce 1000kWh, Export 1000kWh and Import 1000kWh your bill should not be $0 + connection fee. I do agree that exported power is worth more than $0.003/kWh but it's not sustainable to credit distributed generation customers the same rate they are charged.

If you want to have not have an electric bill you should be producing more power than you consume... ~25% more.

 

[Ride Long]

Conceptually, there is little doubt that a robust, resilient national power grid is a vital public interest to all persons and businesses. Perhaps then we should start to treat it as such and make it a truly public resource managed in the public interest?

Completely separate out the business of generating electricity (multiple players, regulated market) and delivering electricity (publicly owned, managed, and paid for). If I have a solar array that produces more electricity than I use I should be able to market the surplus while paying to maintain the grid. It's in my interest that my community has excellent public schools and roads, even if I use none (the schools) or a very small fraction (the roads). The electrical grid is no different.

 

[BerTX]

Depends on how much you get paid for EXPORTS... If EXPORTS > Off-peak then it makes more sense to charge at night...

In TX the is no TOU, no net-metering; Exports get credited ~$0.075.kWh and Imports cost $0.12/kWh so "self-consuming" power to charge your car saves ~$0.045/kWh.

There are well over 100 power companies in "TX" -- I assume these numbers apply to your utility -- they certainly don't apply to mine. We do have TOU, and net metering and a very different pricing structure. Not criticizing, just in the interest of accuracy...

 

[ronnussbaum]

Robert's bridge analogy is completely flawed. When I drive either way across the bridge I am a consumer, and expect to pay. When I draw electricity from the grid, I am also a consumer and expect to pay. On the other hand, when I send electricity to the grid, then I am become a merchant with a product to sell. It's up to our PUC to determine what my power is worth to other users. Our utility thinks my power is worth next to nothing, but in the same breath they want to charge consumers a premium for the power that they produce from their own PV arrays. If Xcel thinks my power is only worth $0.003 per kWh, (their latest argument for locally produced power going to the grid) then they shouldn't be allowed to charge more for their own PV power (Xcel thinks their green PV power is worth $0.16 per kWh) BTW, in Colorado, all users pay a separate monthly fee to Xcel for the grid infrastructure, also set by the PUC, so even someone who balances out on net metering pays the same infrastructure fee as did their next door neighbor.

Exactly right, the utility companies have a profit mandate and a greed factor in the light of a renewable, non toxic energy source.

 

[ronnussbaum]

Virginia is not onboard.

 

[jeffhre]

For those who think net metering is good, consider this: you drive east across a toll bridge, paying the toll. When you drive back west, do you expect to have the toll rebated? Of course not; you used the bridge, and therefore you should help pay for its cost.

With net metering, you will drive east across the toll bridge, after adding a local on-ramp to the bridge at your own expense. And since the bridge is losing money, you encourage your neighbors, friends and family to use the bridge, and pay their tolls also. Ultimately your compensation will depend entirely on what the Bridge company negotiates with the transportation department while it makes the claim that you have no right to be heard during the negotiations, and while you are on the return trip driving west, the bridge authority announces that they have changed the terms, and a higher bill will be waiting for you when you arrive home.

Many recent studies are showing that net-metering does not compensate PV owners for their entire contribution to the grid.

 

[bgri5th]

The premise you state in your first paragraph using Person A and Person B I disagree with. You simplified it later by saying:

"How much we contribute to it’s maintenance should be commensurate to our use."

I disagree. How much we contribute should be a fixed cost-not based on usage. Person A needs the grid very little Person B needs the grid a lot, but BOTH NEED the grid. Both should pay equally. Wires don't wear out based on the amount or direction electricity is flowing. The infrastructure cost to maintain and improve are a necessary cost to every home and business, but it is a fixed cost.

How MUCH we use and when we use it has a variable cost that we should each pay base on usage.

 

[dfwatt]

This has been addressed... for obvious reasons we can't ALL use a resource (the grid) that isn't free... for free... at low levels of Solar PV penetration this is irrelevant but the objective is 100% renewables.

Roberts bridge analogy is only applicable to Distributed Generation customers that ARE NOT net 'Positive'. If you Produce 1000kWh, Export 1000kWh and Import 1000kWh your bill should not be $0 + connection fee. I do agree that exported power is worth more than $0.003/kWh but it's not sustainable to credit distributed generation customers the same rate they are charged.

If you want to have not have an electric bill you should be producing more power than you consume... ~25% more.

Would you mind clarifying who you work for? I'm asking because actually you make the arguments that the utilities are making in support of the maintenance of their Monopoly. Net metering is an existential threat to the utilities no question about that. Do you work for them?

 

[nwdiver]

Would you mind clarifying who you work for? I'm asking because actually you make the arguments that the utilities are making in support of the maintenance of their Monopoly. Net metering is an existential threat to the utilities no question about that. Do you work for them?

I work to get more renewable energy. Doesn't the grid help us use more renewable energy? The primary argument utilities make is about cost shifting. That people w/o solar pay more as they assume a greater portion of fixed cost. People w/o solar SHOULD pay more. That's another mechanism to encourage more solar.

The problem is that can only go so far. If utilities are forced to keep net metering they can find other more creative ways to bilk people with solar that are far worse than not having net metering at all. Speaking from experience. Xcel had net metering. They also added a special rate.

New Mexico Solar Installer Joins Fight Against Unfair Fee — and Wins​

 

[dfwatt]

I work to get more renewable energy. Doesn't the grid help us use more renewable energy? The primary argument utilities make is about cost shifting. That people w/o solar pay more as they assume a greater portion of fixed cost. People w/o solar SHOULD pay more. That's another mechanism to encourage more solar.

The problem is that can only go so far. If utilities are forced to keep net metering they can find other more creative ways to bilk people with solar that are far worse than not having net metering at all. Speaking from experience. Xcel had net metering. They also added a special rate.

New Mexico Solar Installer Joins Fight Against Unfair Fee — and Wins​

These are specious arguments. The reason why net metering is in the crosshairs of the utilities is not because all forms of it are some unfair subsidy for solar users, it's because if you can collapse net metering you can eventually destroy any payback from rooftop solar. At the very least you can force people into purchasing multiple expensive batteries which protracts their payback to 30 + years. The real Motivation by the utilities is not to recover costs associated with some kind of subsidy of the elite it's to make the technology of rooftop solar a non-starter for everybody. Lots of ways to do that all you have to do is make sure that the payback. Is greater than 25 years.

People should pay a connection charge and this should be realistic not based on wildly inflated numbers coming from the utilities. Folks with solar who are actually putting as we do one to two megawatts a year into the grid are actually supporting the grid. We don't get paid by the way for that subsidy of the grid but the local Power Company has managed to increase the connection charge by 300%. In any case if you tax solar, obviate or cripple net metering and collectively obviate any incentive to purchase rooftop solar panels through any number of measures, you can make sure that nobody has any incentive to compete with the grid and the grid maintains its Monopoly status. At the top of the list of laws promoting Monopoly is the requirement that everybody be part of the grid. That's a great way to ensure that the goose that laid the golden eggs doesn't get undercut by the disruptive technology of rooftop solar. We wouldn't want that!

Sounds like where you're coming from. If so, you might be an example of how you cannot expect somebody to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding it.

 

[nwdiver]

if you can collapse net metering you can eventually destroy any payback from rooftop solar.

You can easily destroy payback WITH net metering. Did you not read my posts?

 

[dfwatt]

You can easily destroy payback WITH net metering. Did you not read my posts?

It's not either or. You can tax per kilowatt hour of the system, establish a minimum connection fee that is punitive, or gut net metering. All three are viable approaches to maintaining utility monopolies because they make the purchase of the solar system no longer financially tenable. In any case I would bet you have no interest in disrupting utility monopolies if they are paying you.

 

[nwdiver]

It's not either or. You can tax per kilowatt hour of the system, establish a minimum connection fee that is punitive, or gut net metering. All three are viable approaches to maintaining utility monopolies because they make the purchase of the solar system no longer financially tenable. In any case I would bet you have no interest in disrupting utility monopolies if they are paying you.

So why this focus on net metering? If you think I’m paid by utilities you clearly haven’t read my posts

 

[dfwatt]

So why this focus on net metering? If you think I’m paid by utilities you clearly haven’t read my posts

It's not entirely clear what your point is. You seem to regard the debate over net metering as uninformed. But you've offered no options in terms of any path forward.

 

[nwdiver]

It's not entirely clear what your point is. You seem to regard the debate over net metering as uninformed. But you've offered no options in terms of any path forward.

???? My point is that we need to remove net metering from its pedestal and transition to an arbitrage model where the value of exported energy is based on the time it’s exported. Same with imports.

My point is that net metering is too blunt as a policy so it leads to even worse rates.

 

[dfwatt]

???? My point is that we need to remove net metering from its pedestal and transition to an arbitrage model where the value of exported energy is based on the time it’s exported. Same with imports.

My point is that net metering is too blunt as a policy so it leads to even worse rates.

Boy I have no idea where you got the idea that net metering is on any kind of pedestal. On the other hand your proposals for a time of use arbitration I agree with. But I still see nothing in any of your posts that separates you meaningfully from support for absolute Monopoly Power by the utilities. Or any acknowledgment that rooftop solar is a disruptive technology that utilities know they have to prevent from widespread adoption. Otherwise they're done. Anyway you slice it.

 

[nwdiver]

Boy I have no idea where you got the idea that net metering is on any kind of pedestal.

…. no idea at all?

if you can collapse net metering you can eventually destroy any payback from rooftop solar.

 

[dfwatt]

…. no idea at all?

I think you're more interested actually in debating than in anything else. Did I hit a nerve? Clearly net metering is a target of the utilities but as I've already spelled out there are two other ways to prevent solar from being installed on rooftops namely tax per kilowatt hour of panels and punitive connection charges. As I've spelled out these are not mutually exclusive and the utilities have tried them in varying combinations. Net metering is one of their favorite targets for sure. But they're not above using the other two approaches to achieve the same end.

The utilities are interested in preventing the disruptive technology of rooftop solar from destroying their Golden Goose monopoly. You have not even acknowledged that reality, and have done nothing to dissuade the argument that you are a shill for the utilities.

I reiterate my basic question to you which you have refused to answer across three posts to me. What is your point? What are you proposing as long term solutions? And why is it that you are so grid-centric? What's your problem with a decentralized grid?