Solar happenings

[Denarius]

I don't know how it works where you are, but when PG&E calculates my bill, I get full tariff (retail) credit for the energy that I push into the grid at MY rate schedule price. The neighbor that actually uses that power may be on a different rate schedule where they do not have time-of-use charge, thereby paying less for the energy than the utility credited me for. It is compounded by the fact that I charge my car at night and pay an even lower price for the energy that I take back from the grid. They set the rules, I'm just playing the game...

Here we don't get anything for power fed back in. Meter just runs backwards. If you produce excess all benefit goes to the power company.

 

[FlasherZ]

But wouldn't the electric company selling my power at peak make up for the reduction in my usage? In your case maybe not, but on a system closer to neutral over the 3 month time?

Not in my case, other consumers don't really come into play (I've been told that the wholesale price of power really doesn't change on a time-of-day basis for them to make any appreciable difference). If any part of the gross margin is used to recover non-variable costs (plant maintenance, SG&A, etc.), those costs will have to be redistributed to a smaller pool of net consumption. Customers without solar will end up paying the share of plant maintenance, SG&A costs, etc., that solar consumers won't pay for in the per-kWh consumption price.

For example, if the power company needs to recover a total of $30,000 in fixed costs from usage across a total volume of 1,000 MWh, the per-kWh price component will be $0.03 per kWh. In a non-solar world, Consumer A (1,000 kWh) will pay $30 toward fixed costs. Consumer B (1,000 kWh) will pay $30 toward fixed costs. Now, let's say 10% of the power company's power is offset by Consumers installing PV - Consumer A goes this direction and his net consumption becomes zero. Consumer A (now 0 kWh) will pay $0 toward the fixed costs. Because the Power Company lost 10% of its variable revenue, in order for the Power Company to recover its fixed costs of $30,000, it will have to raise its price component by 10%, or to $0.0333. This means that Consumer B (non-solar) will now pay $33 ($3 more) toward fixed costs, while Consumer A pays $0 ($30 less). This is what they mean by non-solar customers subsidizing grid interconnection costs for solar customers. The plant depreciation and maintenance costs do not scale linearly with usage.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how it works where you are, but when PG&E calculates my bill, I get full tariff (retail) credit for the energy that I push into the grid at MY rate schedule price. The neighbor that actually uses that power may be on a different rate schedule where they do not have time-of-use charge, thereby paying less for the energy than the utility credited me for. It is compounded by the fact that I charge my car at night and pay an even lower price for the energy that I take back from the grid. They set the rules, I'm just playing the game...

That's not how it works here. Production in excess of consumption can be applied to future consumption in excess of production up to 3 months later, otherwise it just "falls off".

 

[lolachampcar]

I disagree on those two points, in my area at least. Here people don't get paid on any power they generate, the meter does roll backwards however. Any excess you produce is free power for the power co, most of that during peak periods. I reduce their costs to operate during the day, and they are selling my power to others. In exchange, I get power at night, keeping their average load up. I don't see how this isn't a net win for my power company.

Actually, we agree perfectly.
Currently, I am receiving a "free battery" function from FPL in that my net meter runs backwards during the day so I get to "store" my overage during the day on FPL's grid then retrieve it at night. We reconcile the net of the metering once a year and I get paid 2.5 cents a KW-Hr. My incentive is currently to produce exactly what I use in a calendar year and not one bit more.

Flasher's point was that utilities are pushing grid costs into production prices thus the actual cost of the grid is not apparent. My comments were to break down the two fundamental elements in play; namely, the battery function my utility provides me and the peak generation I provide them. If utilities properly distribute and charge the cost of the grid (a connection charge) and the cost of generation and pay the actual value of the peak power PV households produce together with the benefit of no grid loss (your neighbor uses you the power you produce), you will have an accurate cost model.

My reduction in bill will be a bit less today but my incentive to use local storage and thus cut the grid tie goes up. Today's approach of net metering by the utility makes solar happen faster (higher per unit of power charge because the grid is wrapped into the per energy unit charge making solar more attractive) and keeps me on the grid. Split grid and generation charges and solar will happen slower but, when it does, it will be accompanied by storage thus grid defection.

Today's approach makes solar happen faster and keeps customers on the grid. The only better approach is for the utility to buy the solar and put it on people's homes so that the utility stays in the generation business.

 

[wycolo]

> He's likely referring to pumped hydro storage [JRP3]

Without the 'pumped' I got lost. Indeed, as I lived thru all the Cornwall NY pumped storage wars back in '62 (I lived 20 miles downstream from Storm King Mt).


> New York Launches Major Regulatory Reform for Utilities : Greentech Media [ggies07]

Its all there, the full, broad based analysis, presenting all points of view: consumer, home PV operators, commercial interests, grid requirements - what could possibly go wrong here?
--

 

[Robert.Boston]

By (most) states' law, utilities also function as a welfare agency and policy implementation wing of the government. How? Utilities have special requirements to provide low-cost power, to maintain service even in the event of non-payment, to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects (even if the business logic for these isn't perfect), etc. When I was rewriting the Rhode Island utility laws back in 2001, I initially tried to move these items out of the utility realm and into the general budget, where such social programs should be funded. The reality was, though, that the politicians were delighted to be able to run an "off-budget" set of social programs.

Just another set of inefficiencies imbedded in the electric rates you and I pay. If we're going to blow open the monopoly on grid services, these programs will need to be funded differently or simply cancelled.

- - - Updated - - -

> He's likely referring to pumped hydro storage [JRP3]

Without the 'pumped' I got lost. Indeed, as I lived thru all the Cornwall NY pumped storage wars back in '62 (I lived 20 miles downstream from Storm King Mt).

I'm thinking of a very specific set of circumstances that we see in a few places with LOTS of hydro with large reservoirs, e.g. Québec, Argentina, and New Zealand. In these markets, the system is water-limited, that is, you can meet most any hour's demand with 100% hydro, but if you did that in every hour of the year, you'd run out of water. In such circumstances, intermittent renewables (wind, solar, waves) allow the system operator to leave water behind the dam. It's a subtle form of storage and has the benefit of being lossless.

 

[miimura]

Here we don't get anything for power fed back in. Meter just runs backwards. If you produce excess all benefit goes to the power company.

If the meter runs backwards, it should decrement the cumulative reading. How do not get credit for that when your usage makes the meter run forwards back to the same reading?

Clearly, California's annual true-up system is almost the most advantageous system one can imagine since we can use high summer generation to offset the lower winter production and higher gross usage. A monthly dollar figure is calculated and tallied at the end of the year. Most people have negative bills in summer months and positive bills in the winter. Any negative dollars are wiped out unless you are truly a net producer. PG&E pays about $0.04/kWh for net in-feed at the end of the year, regardless of rate schedule.

 

[FlasherZ]

If the meter runs backwards, it should decrement the cumulative reading. How do not get credit for that when your usage makes the meter run forwards back to the same reading?

If reading month 1 = 15000 and reading month 2 = 14000, the power company gets 1 MWh for free from you. In California, you end up with a negative bill. We don't. We get to carry that production excess in our accounts for up to a quarter (to offset any consumption excess), then it falls off the books without any remuneration.

 

[nwdiver]

NET-METERING MUST GO

If we want to create an ecosystem that supports expanded use of solar we must stop supporting net-metering policies. The grid is good and needs to be supported but its use should also be discouraged. In other words the amount I pay the local utility should reflect how much I use the grid. This would support demand response and storage. AZ, NM and WA all have net metering laws and in each state the utility has found ways to recover money from self-generating customers that in no way reflect how much they use the utilities services.

For each state lets assume the ideal; 10kWp installed; you're connected to the grid for back-up but NEVER use it since you have a battery bank and sync your power use to when the sun is up. Further, let's say you have a net excess.

AZ - $7/month - No credit for excess
NM - $0.026/kWh produced - ~$40/month - Credit for excess is ~0.02-$0.036/kWh Often paid less for power delivered than fee for power produced :cursing:

WA - Standard connection fee - No credit for annual excess

Compare these to TX which has no net metering law. TXU simply pays $0.075 for ALL exports and charges $0.12/kWh imported. Balancing power use in TX would yield a smaller bill and its more sustainable than any state with net metering. Net metering must go; it's giving utilities an excuse to charge fees based on installed capacity or production; discouraging power management and storage. Replacing it with a law requiring self-generating customers be PAID a minimum of 50% retail for ALL exports would be more effective and more sustainable.

 

[FlasherZ]

There are several things wrong with your suppositions. First, you're not including service connection fees / fixed costs. The picture looks much different if you have to pay $60/month for your meter on one provider vs. $25/month on another - and the former probably has a better alignment in its variable cost structure.

Second - a power company doesn't get to decide whether he buys your capacity or not. If you sync to the grid, and your neighbor draws power, you're going to become a supplier. A law that mandates 50% of retail fixes either prices or margins, depending upon the regulatory structure. I'm not sure 50% is the right price or whether it needs to be lower.

So let's look at what happens without net metering. Does TXU do billing settlement on a per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, or per-month basis? For example, if you draw 20 kWh from the grid between 8-9 am but feed back 20 kWh into the grid 1-2 pm, what's your bill for those two times going to be? $0, because it's net-zero for the month - 20 in, 20 out? Or is your bill $0.24 from 8-9, and you get credit for $0.15, making it $0.09? Net metering laws are basically ensuring that power companies use the former, and don't set up a time-based structure like the latter, which would benefit them far more.

The only people who are arguing over this are those who want to become net generators to the utility; in that case, you probably shouldn't be connecting as a consumer of their service but rather - legally - as a supplier to them.

(Disclosure: 9 kW system on my garage that offsets about $120/month of a $300-650/month bill @ $.095/kWh for first 2000 and $.09/kWh afterwards. I'm a net consumer. I rather think our net metering laws are fine.)

 

[AndroidDream]

I put in a 10kW system last year here in Michigan with net-metering. I pay the same $14.00 “Availability Charge” as the non-generating customers. I have a smart bi-directional meter. It keeps track of how much power I pull from the grid, and how much power I send back to the grid. The rate per kWh is the same either way. I get charged $0.12285 per kWh for how much the meter spins forward, and I get a credit of $0.12285 per kWh for how much the meter spins backwards, broken out on my bill. They also charge me a small “Energy Optimization Surcharge” and “Power Supply Cost Recovery” based on just the kWh delivered to my home. My March bill was $20.52, but only $2.95 was actual power cost, the rest was from the service costs. I had negative bills last summer, that were balanced out by greater need during low generating winter months. A foot of snow on your panels really cuts into your output.

 

[FlasherZ]

I put in a 10kW system last year here in Michigan with net-metering. I pay the same $14.00 “Availability Charge” as the non-generating customers. I have a smart bi-directional meter. It keeps track of how much power I pull from the grid, and how much power I send back to the grid. The rate per kWh is the same either way. I get charged $0.12285 per kWh for how much the meter spins forward, and I get a credit of $0.12285 per kWh for how much the meter spins backwards, broken out on my bill. They also charge me a small “Energy Optimization Surcharge” and “Power Supply Cost Recovery” based on just the kWh delivered to my home. My March bill was $20.52, but only $2.95 was actual power cost, the rest was from the service costs. I had negative bills last summer, that were balanced out by greater need during low generating winter months. A foot of snow on your panels really cuts into your output.

I agree on the snow bit. There's a giant valley for over a week in my February output graphs.

Yours is an example similar to what I was pointing out for the fixed-cost recoveries. I'd be willing to bet that it costs your power company far more than $14/month/subscriber to build and maintain the fixed-cost infrastructure that makes up the grid, along with their SG&A costs.

 

[nwdiver]

The only people who are arguing over this are those who want to become net generators to the utility; in that case, you probably shouldn't be connecting as a consumer of their service but rather - legally - as a supplier to them.

Yeah... that's kinda my point. However, unlike a supplier I'm delivering on the kWh not GWh level. That's the shift we need to make; If we want a solar future we need utility policies that encourage producing more power than you consume. Not every home is able to support enough solar to displace its use. Then you have cities, condos and apartments; if we want the supply for these areas to be clean and sustainable we must encourage residences and businesses that can support more solar PV to install more solar PV. Net-Metering discourages this. Germany had the right idea, they went with feed-in-tariffs.

 

[FlasherZ]

Yeah... that's kinda my point. However, unlike a supplier I'm delivering on the kWh not GWh level. That's the shift we need to make; If we want a solar future we need utility policies that encourage producing more power than you consume. Not every home is able to support enough solar to displace its use. Then you have cities, condos and apartments; if we want the supply for these areas to be clean and sustainable we must encourage residences and businesses that can support more solar PV to install more solar PV. Net-Metering discourages this. Germany had the right idea, they went with feed-in-tariffs.

I'd be fine with net metering plus a requirement that excess be paid to the consumerat average wholesale price paid by the utility to its other suppliers.

 

[brianman]

Anytime someone offers an answer of "George Soros" or "Koch Brothers" to the reason that some action is taken, I have to immediately write off the conversation summarily, like when Krugman tries to play an economist.

"Bush's fault".

 

[lolachampcar]

Rove's fault, or was that Carville?? I get those two confused.

 

[swaltner]

If the meter runs backwards, it should decrement the cumulative reading. How do not get credit for that when your usage makes the meter run forwards back to the same reading?

No, the standard meter that I had installed on my house had the dial spinning backwards, but the kWh counter didn't count backwards. It was in this state for two weeks after my solar panel install, before the power company came out and replaced my meter with a new one that had two individual counters (one fore power taken off the grid, one for power put onto the grid).

 

[miimura]

No, the standard meter that I had installed on my house had the dial spinning backwards, but the kWh counter didn't count backwards. It was in this state for two weeks after my solar panel install, before the power company came out and replaced my meter with a new one that had two individual counters (one fore power taken off the grid, one for power put onto the grid).

Got it. You had an electro-mechanical meter that never decremented the reading when the dial was running backwards.

 

[Chipper]

Got it. You had an electro-mechanical meter that never decremented the reading when the dial was running backwards.

Funny thing....same thing happened to me. They turned on my solar after installing a new meter. We all watched it running backwards and thought all was well. A few days later I got a call from the local electrical utility. "Sir we need to come out and replace that meter." It seems the "new" mechanical meter was not decrementing nor was it incrementing. It was spinning but not keeping track of anything. For several days I had been using FREE electricity. I told them to just take their time. No hurry getting to my place. Funny that it took them more than a week to commission my solar install so I could turn it on, but it took them only a couple of hours to come out and install a working meter!

 

[andrewket]

I don't know how it works where you are, but when PG&E calculates my bill, I get full tariff (retail) credit for the energy that I push into the grid at MY rate schedule price. The neighbor that actually uses that power may be on a different rate schedule where they do not have time-of-use charge, thereby paying less for the energy than the utility credited me for. It is compounded by the fact that I charge my car at night and pay an even lower price for the energy that I take back from the grid. They set the rules, I'm just playing the game...

I wish it worked that way here. If it did I would have a PV system. Dominion (VA) won't allow TOU and net metering together.

 

[tigerade]

Solar panels are finally back on the White House:

Inside the White House: Solar Panels - YouTube

The Youtube comments are a little depressing:

Mark Rushing: President Carter installed solar panels on the Whitehouse back in the 70's during the "oil shortage". President Reagan tore them down almost immediately when he got the office. President Obama put them back.

Hornybama: ...And in 2016 a republican is going to tare that waste down immediately. Can't wait!