Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Get OFF the Grid: Utilities seek to charge solar system owners more for connection to grid

  1. #1

    Get OFF the Grid: Utilities seek to charge solar system owners more for connection to grid

    Tired of growing electricity bills, Miguel Espinoza decided to turn to the sun, rather than the grid, for power.

    The Inglewood resident signed in March with solar leasing giant SolarCity to fix his electric bills at $130 a month — down from the $250 to $300 he had been paying.

    Those savings, however, would eventually evaporate if state regulators approve proposals from California utilities to charge solar users more for their connection to the grid.

    "This thing would be worthless to me," Espinoza said.

    Existing rooftop solar customers would receive some exemptions from the net-metering changes for 20 years after they installed their systems. But their costs still could rise because of separate regulatory changes, already enacted, that allow higher rates for users who buy small amounts of electricity from the grid.

    For new purchases of rooftop solar, the utility proposals could wipe out the potential savings on power — the main incentive for buying the systems.

    Lyndon Rive, chief executive of SolarCity, describes a "catastrophic" future for rooftop solar if the California Public Utilities Commission approves the proposals, which are set for hearings to start Oct. 5.

    At issue is the practice of net metering, in which utilities credit solar users for surplus power their systems create, which gets fed back into the grid for use by other customers. Solar users are credited at the same rate they would pay the utility for electricity.

    Utility proposals call for crediting solar users at about half the current rates. Utilities would also charge monthly fees, based on the size of a homeowner's solar system.

    The proposed fees could make solar power systems unaffordable — which is exactly what utilities want, Rive and other solar proponents say.

    "This is a clear indication that the utilities are trying to stop competition and the solar industry," said Rive, whose San Mateo, Calif., company operates in 19 states.

    Utilities contend that rooftop solar owners — often wealthier homeowners, who can afford the high upfront installation costs — haven't been paying their fair share of the cost of maintaining power lines, transformers, substations and power plants. Solar users typically must stay connected to the grid, either because their systems don't generate enough power to cover their needs or as backup power after the sun sets.

    The expansion of solar, utilities say, means that the costs of grid maintenance are being shifted to traditional customers, who tend to be poor or middle-class families.

    "All customers who use the grid should help pay to operate and upgrade the grid," said Caroline Choi, Southern California Edison's vice president of energy and environmental policy.


    Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. have proposed plans that include reducing compensation to rooftop solar owners for the electricity they generate and adding monthly fees of as much as $3 for every kilowatt of capacity they own.

    Under Edison's plan, for instance, an owner of a 6-kilowatt solar system would pay an $18-a-month charge and receive 8 cents a kilowatt for electricity sent to the grid — about half the current amount.
    cComments

    "Costs for residential solar have fallen dramatically, and it is time to update the structure used to enable rooftop solar to reflect the advances in the solar industry," Choi said.

    Utility critics point to a different motivation: Rooftop solar poses a threat to the utilities' century-old business model of centralized power and the regulatory framework that supports it. In essence, the more utilities spend to maintain the grid, the more money they make.

    The industry trade association, the Edison Electric Institute, referred to rooftop solar and its consumer-friendly cousin, energy efficiency, as "disruptive challenges" in a 2013 report.

    A recent assessment by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center found that 16 of the 44 states with net-metering policies were considering or enacting changes. Wisconsin and Arizona recently imposed significant increases in the amounts that utilities can charge solar users.

    After the Arizona policy took effect, applications for rooftop solar installations dropped from hundreds a month to a handful,
    said Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Assn.

    "I think it's clear nationally," Gallagher said, "that the utilities are concerned about the impact on their business with customers generating their own electricity, and they're pushing back. What California does may legitimize some of these proposals in other states."
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...927-story.html
    "IF GOD DIDN'T WANT TO HELP AMERICA, THEN WE WOULD HAVE Hillary Clinton"!!
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    It's about time. Solar systems tend to fluctuate in production wildly, putting immense strain on the crappy, "regulated" half-assed, half grid. The only reason solar operators have been subsidized by honest rate-payers this long is that politicians have been working hard to get that reach-around. Solar definitely has a place, but that place is not the grid.
    "This here's Miss Bonnie Parker. I'm Clyde Barrow. We rob banks."

  4. #3
    The grid has to be able to provide enough energy during solar "down time" which means a utility has to maintain the capacity to be able to deliver it. That costs money. With "net metering" a solar customer may not owe money for the electricity they consume even though the utility still has to pay the costs of providing it to them. Free rider problem. If they don't pay, then the other customers have to pay.

    Others may argue that the solar customer is providing the utility with energy they don't have to produce. That is also true- some of the time. When the sun is shining. What some have suggested is that rather than paying the retail price of energy (which included the costs of facilities and transmission in addition to the generation costs) that they pay the wholesale price- the costs of generating the electricity they don't need to produce during the day- the same rate they buy energy from other suppliers. Facilities costs and distribution costs are basically fixed- no matter what the demand is during day or night or good or bad weather. With net metering, they get not just the variable costs back for the energy company not needing to produce energy at that time- they also are getting back the fixed costs everybody pays (or should be paying). Not sharing those fixed costs among all customers means that the customers who do pay them are subsidizing the customers who do not.

    When you subsidize something you tend to get over-utilization of that thing. More than what a free market would produce.

    Then if you do want to avoid paying those fixed costs of using the grid- like everybody else who use the grid, you can opt to not use the grid. That means batteries or other energy source for when the sun does not shine.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-27-2015 at 11:03 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Then if you do want to avoid paying those fixed costs of using the grid- like everybody else who use the grid, you can opt to not use the grid. That means batteries or other energy source for when the sun does not shine.
    Or just not "meter back" the unused solar portion.

    Having to "buy back" the unused portion at higher rates is what this all about, isn't it?

  6. #5
    Under the new terms, I would rather run my excess electrical load through a big resistor and heat the outdoors than feed it back through the grid.

    OFF grid is the goal for me.
    Last edited by sparebulb; 09-27-2015 at 07:38 PM.

  7. #6
    One of the carefully crafted schemes of collecting the government subsidies created by Elon Musk is going to end ? Who did he upset ?

  8. #7
    I cant even begin to understand how someone could let this kind of idea be heard in public. people who pay for the power they get should be charged more because they aren't paying for the power they don't?

    i... but... how... the $#@!?

    I pay a $30 a month service charge for my power here in AZ, $30! my bill has been as low as $60 after taxes and all their charges, so on some months i have paid more for taxes and services charges than for the power i used. how is it they aren't paying their "fair share"?

    lol the irony; as i post this i am getting AZ solar power ad's on the site

  9. #8
    I've been thinking about doing the microhome or living in a camper...this all makes it seem like a better idea!
    "I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me."

    Diane Feinstein, 1995



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Isaac Bickerstaff View Post
    It's about time. Solar systems tend to fluctuate in production wildly, putting immense strain on the crappy, "regulated" half-assed, half grid. The only reason solar operators have been subsidized by honest rate-payers this long is that politicians have been working hard to get that reach-around. Solar definitely has a place, but that place is not the grid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The grid has to be able to provide enough energy during solar "down time" which means a utility has to maintain the capacity to be able to deliver it. That costs money. With "net metering" a solar customer may not owe money for the electricity they consume even though the utility still has to pay the costs of providing it to them. Free rider problem. If they don't pay, then the other customers have to pay.
    Exactly right. See the Duck Curve. Grid tie solar systems can displace a significant proportion of electricity production during the day. However, the power plants that supply the grid must remain available to meet peak demands when these solar systems do not produce (especially early evening and during inclement weather conditions). So, the utility companies lose revenues. However, their operating costs do not decline. The process is easy to understand, it's predictable, and can be readily observed. See any region where grid tie solar systems have become popular, and you will see electricity prices higher in direct proportion to the electricity production displaced by these systems. Yet another boondoggle made possible by a corrupt system that rewards parasitic behavior.

    Last edited by buenijo; 10-02-2019 at 01:11 PM.
    "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." Thomas Sowell



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •