Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Solar happenings

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#661
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. Did you try plugging in some numbers? Do you disagree with the equation? The point I'm trying to make is that your(and Robert's and the utilities) arguments regarding net-metering are specious in a literal sense. They are nominally true in that net-metering does distort pricing, but false in the magnitude and the conclusion. Simply saying omniously that its serious as Robert does or appealing to authority doesn't make it so. Its not now a serious distortion nor will it be a serious distortion under any remotely reasonable scenario.

You are also confusing subsidies paid to PV generation and costs of net-metering. It is not a valid argument to say that because PV subsidies are expensive that net-metering is expensive. It is not. Furthermore the equation I gave you is a worst-case one that assumes no benefits to the grid from PV. One can easily argue that the benefit to utilities from rate arbitrage(that is from getting expensive on-peak generation capacity and giving it back at cheap off peak times) fully outweighs any other costs, not to mention lower transmission line costs from having generation close to demand and the effects on fuel prices from lowered demand.

So, there are many arguments here. Only one of which is hammered home by the utilities and their lobbyists like Robert. That net-metering creates a "utility death spiral". Its simply BS and doesn't pass the smell test.




ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:
- Residential customers pay for residential distribution costs, which are an expensive part of the distribution system. You can't take a simple 1/3.
- You can't assume that the total kWh use of net metered houses matches the average use, especially given that the subsidy is of greatest benefit to high consumers and that people in the best position to take advantage are those who are capital rich.
- What is that 1% of total? Is that feed-in or use? As I wrote, it's not the amount fed in that matters, it's the total unpaid/subsidy kWh of the households with PV.
- The current distribution fees are also paying for past capital investments. The introduction of residential PV messes with those assumptions, which adds to the cost of capital.
- I wasn't suggesting that net metering costs would be responsible for the all of the projected cost increases. It's just one piece of the puzzle but it's important because it's a such a sizable subsidy to the customer (my per-kWh distribution price here in Maine is 6.9c/kWh) without which solar PV would definitely not be an economic installation. There are other subsidies and the projected increase is for a significant percentage increase in solar's RPS.
- Massachusetts aim is to have 1.6GW of solar capacity, up from .025GW now. The 2012 MA total summer capacity was 14.3GW.

It's not like anybody here's suggesting "Boo solar, no subsidies for you." It's that Robert, I and others would really like to see a correction in the pricing systems so that they don't create unnecessary antagonism and the market can work properly. Just as successful PEV means that the current road-funding system will have to be changed, so residential solar requires a change in the payment system. At this point, if you want more solar in the grid, either the PV owner pays more, or everybody pays more. The excessive subsidies are helping to sustain the USA's excessive soft costs and also encourage purchase of capacity over efficiency.

PS Germany's renewable energy surcharge currently stands at 8.4c/kWh.
Click to expand...
 
#662
VolkerP said:
Residential buffering batteries are not economical per household nor desirable on the overall economic scale. One house could be charging while its neighbor is discharging its batteries. That's what the grid is for, to distribute electric energy between generation and consumption. The cost for the batteries in each house and for the additional cycle wear is a waste IMHO.

The UCs should push for legislation that transforms this scenario in a win-win for all involved parties at the lowest possible prices. And no, I don't have a complete solution at my hands but I am convinced that distribute storage facilities run by the grid operator will be part of the solution, plus incentive to manage the electric load formed by EV charging.
Click to expand...

If we use batteries for storage, it is more energy efficient to minimize the transmission losses. If you transmit, store, and transmit again, you lose more than if you just store it and use it later. Having local backup is also good if the grid goes down. Even if you store it, then transmit it to someone else, you are transmitting once rather than twice. So if the system for grid storage is things like recycled car batteries, then having it at each house that produces energy is more energy efficient. On the other hand, if there is a different way to store energy that scales better with centralization, then that may work (industrial scale flywheels are one option, and other systems exist, I read about one that pumps water into a holding area then releases it when needed).

Batteries in a house that is not connected to the grid is certainly less efficient than batteries in a house that is connected, but the issue is that if the utility doesn't have some form of net metering, it will make economical sense for most people to disconnect from the grid and rely on battery backup, decreasing efficiency overall, as well as taking business away from the utility companies.

The point is, it is in the utilities best interest to to enable people to produce their own power and remain connected to the grid. If they do so, they can transition to being a distribution service smoothly, and have a productive and profitable business even if energy production becomes trivially cheap.
 
#664
And now we have the forward looking state of Utah, looking to impose a fee on those who generate their own solar power:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57592455-90/bill-com-costs-critics.html.csp

I can certainly see why a company would want to have grid connected solar users pay for a portion of the infrastructure upkeep. But this seems more like the powers that be looking to simply slow down solar growth versus the coal interests. And the funny thing is, these guys haven't thought it through. They are looking one move ahead, but they will be checkmated in three moves. They are shooting themselves in the foot, because this will only provide a market based incentive for people to obtain their own energy storage capability and go completely off grid. Of course, this is not economically viable for most now, but that will change over time, and a relatively short amount of time I believe.

Then the next step will be that the utilities will charge non-users of electricity to support those still connected to the grid. Think of it as a hefty reverse golden parachute. So you want to disconnect from the grid huh, that will be a $500 one time charge. Should do wonders for the sellers of wire cutters :smile:

RT
 
#666
Tim said:
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. Did you try plugging in some numbers? Do you disagree with the equation? The point I'm trying to make is that your(and Robert's and the utilities) arguments regarding net-metering are specious in a literal sense. They are nominally true in that net-metering does distort pricing, but false in the magnitude and the conclusion. Simply saying omniously that its serious as Robert does or appealing to authority doesn't make it so. Its not now a serious distortion nor will it be a serious distortion under any remotely reasonable scenario.
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagreed with your numbers. Your assignment of distribution costs was wrong, your use of the EIA's percentage may be wrong, your evaluation of the effect of net metering is wrong, and your use of present numbers to argue against a response that considers the future is wrong.

Your "reasonable scenario" defense is not reasonable. You're actually saying not to worry because people won't install solar PV. Under the current net metering subsidy combined with the current distribution pricing model people can make a good economic decision to install solar PV. The utilities are then acting rationally to argue against installation of residential solar PV, because every installation worsens the competitive environment.

You are also confusing subsidies paid to PV generation and costs of net-metering. It is not a valid argument to say that because PV subsidies are expensive that net-metering is expensive. It is not. Furthermore the equation I gave you is a worst-case one that assumes no benefits to the grid from PV. One can easily argue that the benefit to utilities from rate arbitrage(that is from getting expensive on-peak generation capacity and giving it back at cheap off peak times) fully outweighs any other costs, not to mention lower transmission line costs from having generation close to demand and the effects on fuel prices from lowered demand.
Click to expand...

No, they are not going to have significantly lower transmission line costs, particularly in MA. The transmission costs are based on peak demands which have to be met whatever the weather conditions.

You are also confusing the direct cost of net metering with the effect of net metering subsidies. The net metering subsidy adds solar PV consumers by turning negative ROI into positive ROI, and, because of the billing by kWh, it results in consumers on the grid paying nothing for distribution (and supply) for their whole use. That cost has to be shifted somewhere, and as long as installations continue to increase, the cost shifting will become become increasingly visible to consumers, increasing ROI and therefore accelerating installations. I can't see how increasing ROI wouldn't lead to increased installation, particularly with the increasing availability of PPAs that allow the capital poor to install solar.

So, there are many arguments here. Only one of which is hammered home by the utilities and their lobbyists like Robert. That net-metering creates a "utility death spiral". Its simply BS and doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Again, the ad hominem attack on Robert.

There's no suggestion of a "utility death spiral". The problem is that the market is skewed in an inaccurate, inefficient, non-scalable way that creates unnecessary antagonism. Shift the distribution pricing model accurately to reflect actual distribution costs by customer and you can eliminate the antagonism, pick an appropriate, shrinking, subsidy that maintains downward pressure on soft costs of solar PV.
 
#667
RubberToe said:
And now we have the forward looking state of Utah, looking to impose a fee on those who generate their own solar power:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57592455-90/bill-com-costs-critics.html.csp

I can certainly see why a company would want to have grid connected solar users pay for a portion of the infrastructure upkeep. But this seems more like the powers that be looking to simply slow down solar growth versus the coal interests. And the funny thing is, these guys haven't thought it through. They are looking one move ahead, but they will be checkmated in three moves. They are shooting themselves in the foot, because this will only provide a market based incentive for people to obtain their own energy storage capability and go completely off grid. Of course, this is not economically viable for most now, but that will change over time, and a relatively short amount of time I believe.

Then the next step will be that the utilities will charge non-users of electricity to support those still connected to the grid. Think of it as a hefty reverse golden parachute. So you want to disconnect from the grid huh, that will be a $500 one time charge. Should do wonders for the sellers of wire cutters :smile:
Click to expand...
It always boggles my mind when different parts of government (or a business, for that matter) are working at cross-purposes. If Utah wants to promote PV adoption, they should think carefully about a tariff structure that provides that incentive without unfairly shifting other costs.

As I said above, there's an easy enough solution: charge homeowners for wires costs based on their service rating (100A, 200A, etc.) and then charge them for power at market prices. If the state then wants to subsidize PV, they can set a solar feed-in tariff rate, paid for by a surcharge on conventional power delivered. Setting a good FIT rate isn't easy; look at the problems in Germany when they set very high, long-lived PV FIT values. But at least this structure gets the incentives rights and makes sure everyone still connected to the grid is paying their equitable share.

Don't laugh at the idea of being charged to disconnect -- this does happen for large customers in some places, allowing the utility to recover the capital cost of the distribution interconnection. Suppose your house is at the end of the line, 10 miles from the nearest neighbor. That last 10 miles was built to service your property. Is it reasonable to be able to walk away from that investment by the utility without charge? I'm not sure, so I offer it up for discussion.
 
#668
Robert.Boston said:
Don't laugh at the idea of being charged to disconnect -- this does happen for large customers in some places, allowing the utility to recover the capital cost of the distribution interconnection. Suppose your house is at the end of the line, 10 miles from the nearest neighbor. That last 10 miles was built to service your property. Is it reasonable to be able to walk away from that investment by the utility without charge? I'm not sure, so I offer it up for discussion.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the regulatory framework in the specific area. PG&E makes new residential customers pay all new costs up to the meter. Well, I shouldn't say ALL - they did not charge me for the bigger transformer they put in, but they made me pay for for trenching, conduit, and the feed line from the top of the pole already on my property to the meter. In this kind of situation, there is no sunk cost for the utility to recover because somebody already paid for it. This is where new rural construction is more likely to install off-grid systems than pay $25,000+ to bring the service to the edge of the property and then all the way up to the structure.
 
#669
Robert.Boston said:
I've never claimed that additional resources are needed to balance more intermittent resources (at least not at the current levels of renewable penetration in the US). What I've asserted is that the fixed cost of the system--including transmission, distribution, and the fixed generation charges--are not much reduced by these resources, but because of the way net metering works, there are fewer billed kilowatt-hours to distribute these costs around. This is one reason why customer charges can rise as renewable penetration (with net metering) increases. If net metering weren't allowed (but instead all generators were paid the real-time wholesale price for their power injections), then rooftop PV wouldn't pay in MA.

Secondly, here in MA we are paying a premium for solar power through Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). Simply put, these subsidize the installation of solar power by increasing power bills. If the SRECs weren't there, then grid-scale PV farms wouldn't pay in MA.

These are simple facts, not judgments. Our state policymakers have decided that there it's in the public interest to allow net metering and to pay SRECs to foster the development of solar power in the state. That decision has consequences, good and bad. The bad is that electricity rates are going up. The good includes that we have less pollution, local green jobs, and are less exposed to future volatility of fossil-fuel prices.
Click to expand...

(Added bold emphasis to the quote.)

Since the current numbers relevant to net-metering are so small, I'd think the "bad" is almost non-existent currently, anywhere in the US. By the time solar installations increase to the point where the "bad" part might become relevant, the cost of solar will have been reduced to the point where it is economical even when taking connection costs into account and adjusting net-metering to take them into account. So I think this non-issue is a distraction, and the only question is whether net-metering is effective in promoting renewables such as roof solar.
 
#670
#671
a little leakage from the roof... make sure they seal all panels and holes after installation :wink:


x6lXEEa.jpg
 
Last edited:
#672
Robert.Boston said:
Don't laugh at the idea of being charged to disconnect -- this does happen for large customers in some places, allowing the utility to recover the capital cost of the distribution interconnection. Suppose your house is at the end of the line, 10 miles from the nearest neighbor. That last 10 miles was built to service your property. Is it reasonable to be able to walk away from that investment by the utility without charge? I'm not sure, so I offer it up for discussion.
Click to expand...
If the last ten miles was built to service your property for free and the local utility is concerned you'll jump ship, then they can require you sign a contract saying that if you disconnect within x amount of years, every usage, or whatever, then you'll have to reimburse them for some outstanding amount from the original connection based on how much you've used or how long you've been connected.
 
#673
omgwtfbyobbq said:
If the last ten miles was built to service your property for free and the local utility is concerned you'll jump ship, then they can require you sign a contract saying that if you disconnect within x amount of years, every usage, or whatever, then you'll have to reimburse them for some outstanding amount from the original connection based on how much you've used or how long you've been connected.
Click to expand...

And if you or a new neighbor re-connects, you get your money back? Like that would happen.
 
#674
Norbert said:
And if you or a new neighbor re-connects, you get your money back? Like that would happen.
Click to expand...
Somewhat along these lines, PG&E required an additional new pole to be installed to feed a new home build. They offered two options - pay some portion of the cost of the new pole OR pay the whole cost and then get money back if and when any other customer was connected to it. In this particular case, there was little chance of another customer ever using it because the area was fully developed and the surrounding houses were fed from completely different lines from different directions. Therefore, choosing the lowest present cost was the easy choice.
 
#675
miimura said:
Somewhat along these lines, PG&E required an additional new pole to be installed to feed a new home build. They offered two options - pay some portion of the cost of the new pole OR pay the whole cost and then get money back if and when any other customer was connected to it. In this particular case, there was little chance of another customer ever using it because the area was fully developed and the surrounding houses were fed from completely different lines from different directions. Therefore, choosing the lowest present cost was the easy choice.
Click to expand...

Which seems to mean that in the end, if you moved out (or disconnected) and someone else took your place, you wouldn't get your money back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Is charge on solar logic flawed?
Replies
6
Views
481
Tesla Energy
pmc1
P
J
TurboTax Delays in Filing for Home Solar Rebate
Replies
20
Views
944
Tesla Energy
holeydonut
holeydonut
L
New to this, Tesla energy app a little confusing, need help on MY HOME screen.
Replies
24
Views
681
Tesla Energy
charlesj
charlesj
F
Charge on solar with multiple vehicles
Replies
1
Views
339
Tesla Energy
arnolddeleon
arnolddeleon
Mardak
Charge on Solar + Battery to stay Self-Powered?
Replies
5
Views
471
Tesla Energy
Mardak
Mardak
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu