PV politics

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

goldbrick

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
2,105
Location
Boulder, CO
If you live in California you might already know about this but I just it. Hope this attitude doesn't come to Colorado.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/11/04/california-set-to-release-anti-rooftop-solar-net-metering-plan/
 
The reason behind the policy appears simple, investor-owned utilities want to sell Californians power, they want to retain monopoly control.

That seems to be common wherever there is surplus power generation. The big utilities don't want competition.
 
The utilities could not care less about monopoly control or selling power ... per se. They want their revenue to increase, and most certainly not decrease.

Give a utility permission to charge every account $150 a month connection fee and they will most happily agree that roof PV is wonderful.
 
Not to get too far into the politics of this one, but the only way to really stick it to the utilities is to either not use them (which is hard for most non-technical people to setup) or use them as little as possible. Like using them as a "backup" power if your solar installation needs maintenance or has issues that prevent it from working. In my home state anyway, there is no profit to be made "selling" solar power back to the utility company because they only pay the same rate that they charge. You are better off just using it all for yourself to either make your utility bills near zero instead of trying to buy and install all the equipment to sell it back to the grid. Yet, we have plenty of marketing companies (and angry customers) who buy into the "get a massive solar setup and sell it back to the grid" installations all over this state and then those customer find out the hard way it will never pay for itself and doesn't work in a power outage. :eek:
 
From an engineering point of view:

Net metering makes sense when there is little solar power, and solar is displacing higher cost peaking power. The past.

Net metering makes no sense when there is enough solar power to require that solar power is curtailed. The future.

The present is between the two.
 
WetEV said:
From an engineering point of view:

Net metering makes sense when there is little solar power, and solar is displacing higher cost peaking power. The past.

Net metering makes no sense when there is enough solar power to require that solar power is curtailed. The future.

The present is between the two.
The utilities say that they are being forced via net metering to pay more for rooftop solar than they could pay for wholesale power. The important point here is that the utility does not value PV power any higher than any other sourced power, nor do they give any value to distributed power.
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
From an engineering point of view:

Net metering makes sense when there is little solar power, and solar is displacing higher cost peaking power. The past.

Net metering makes no sense when there is enough solar power to require that solar power is curtailed. The future.

The present is between the two.
The utilities say that they are being forced via net metering to pay more for rooftop solar than they could pay for wholesale power. The important point here is that the utility does not value PV power any higher than any other sourced power, nor do they give any value to distributed power.

When the utility needs to curtail the utility's solar to purchase solar from someone's roof, it is hard to see how that makes any sense.
 
WetEV said:
When the utility needs to curtail the utility's solar to purchase solar from someone's roof, it is hard to see how that makes any sense.

Granted, but the utility is unhappy (read: losing money) way before that transition point
 
The real answer here is to have enough battery backup available to keep your power onsite and not sell it to the utilities in the first place. If SDG&E wants to charge me for the privilege of net metering, I plan on canceling NEM. I'll install additional PV to compensate for winter conditions and just buy from SDG&E when necessary or perhaps disconnect entirely and run off the backup generator when necessary. It might be cheaper to buy propane for the generator rather than pay $1600/yr (17KW PV x $8/mo) to SDG&E just for the privilege of selling them excess production.
 
johnlocke said:
just buy from SDG&E when necessary

Naive, since this is the crux of the utilitie's problem with rooftop PV: they do not sell enough energy to make you into a profitable customer. Unless of course you pay a hefty fee just for the connection.
 
Making it so it’s legal to be off grid with a backup NG connection
would nip a lot of this in the rear
 
Back in the early '90s when I was selling off-grid systems, we ran the office off our PV/battery pack (via extension cords from the inverter). We also kept our hookup to PG&E just in case, and my boss posted the bill for the connection fee on the wall for customers to see - $5/month. Of course, we had the batteries there in any case for demonstration purposes, so the 'extra' cost of storage to us was zero. I suspect the IOU's would do their damnedest to get the PUC to hike the minimum connection fee to unprofitable levels (for the consumer) now, in order to prevent such behavior.
 
GRA said:
Back in the early '90s when I was selling off-grid systems, we ran the office off our PV/battery pack (via extension cords from the inverter). We also kept our hookup to PG&E just in case, and my boss posted the bill for the connection fee on the wall for customers to see - $5/month. Of course, we had the batteries there in any case for demonstration purposes, so the 'extra' cost of storage to us was zero. I suspect the IOU's would do their damnedest to get the PUC to hike the minimum connection fee to unprofitable levels (for the consumer) now, in order to prevent such behavior.

That's what they do in my state, most of the power utilities charge a "connection fee" that is about $30 / month just to be connected and you didn't use a single watt of power. Then they fold that into the bill and you get a "discount" if you actually use some power to negate that cost. My recent bill as an example below, it's under the "Basic Service" section, so just having a connection and not using it cost roughly $30, but less if you use the service. In areas outside of Nashville (rural area power utilities), they charge even more for a "connection" fee, some as high as $50 / month if you don't use any service. :roll:

IWKTgrY.png
 
SageBrush said:
johnlocke said:
just buy from SDG&E when necessary

Naive, since this is the crux of the utilitie's problem with rooftop PV: they do not sell enough energy to make you into a profitable customer. Unless of course you pay a hefty fee just for the connection.
I would probably buy about 1500-3000 KWH annually. About the same as a small apartment. They can't refuse to sell to me. I just won't sell any power to them. They still get their minimum daily charge for my being connected. It's not about whether I provide them a profit or not. They are a monopoly and don't like anything that reduces their profit margins but because they are a monopoly they also have to provide service, I have enough battery capacity to run on battery power alone for 24 hrs. I also have a 20KW backup generator that could recharge the batteries in about 6 hrs. if necessary. If I go off grid, SDG&E makes nothing from me. How is that profitable?

The current connect fee is $.33/day (minimum charge) or about $10/month. I'm more than willing to pay that for access rights. I'm not willing to pay $150/month for the privilege of selling my excess power for $.03/KWH and buying it back at $.42/KWH.
 
In my state, they are trying to get around that with "Levelized Billing".

Let's say that I pay the $30-$50 / month connection fee and never use the service because I've got an awesome solar/wind/battery setup. The new billing method is a way to take your area "average" and bill you for that instead, regardless of how much you used. People that use more than the average are billed the same as those that use less than the average. It's advertised as a way "control" your bill in the summer or winter when rates will be highest because everyone is running the AC in the summer, Furnace in the winter, etc.

I had to "opt-out" out of that as soon as I heard about it, it's just a way save a little money and sacrifice your savings for the rest of the year in-between when you work out all the math. :evil:
 
OK, The CPUC has removed the Connection fees for Solar PV generation. It still remains to be seen what the reimbursement rates for excess solar power will be or whether Utilities will pay wholesale for power delivered to them and charge retail rates for power they supply to you.
 
johnlocke said:
It still remains to be seen what the reimbursement rates for excess solar power will be or whether Utilities will pay wholesale for power delivered to them and charge retail rates for power they supply to you.
I don't have any problem with wholesale rates, so long as they are spot market prices.
Consumers have to learn to self-consume PV to get the most value from its production. The missing piece is billing that lets consumers consume power distant from their production location.

In a word: Produce at home, charge your EV at work and heat water during the day. From 5pm - 7am power home from EV. The utility gets to bill for its wires, but the consumer obviates the need for energy storage.
 
SageBrush said:
johnlocke said:
It still remains to be seen what the reimbursement rates for excess solar power will be or whether Utilities will pay wholesale for power delivered to them and charge retail rates for power they supply to you.
I don't have any problem with wholesale rates, so long as they are spot market prices.
Consumers have to learn to self-consume PV to get the most value from its production. The missing piece is billing that lets consumers consume power distant from their production location.

In a word: Produce at home, charge your EV at work and heat water during the day. From 5pm - 7am power home from EV. The utility gets to bill for its wires, but the consumer obviates the need for energy storage.
If you power your home from 5 PM to 7 AM with your EV, how do you get to work and back home during the day? Using your employer's power to charge your EV every day? Seems tantamount to theft if you do it every day. Kind of like taking a couple of dozen pens home from work every day.

You are going to need stationary storage to go with PV. You can't take the battery with you in the morning and bring it back in the evening and still store your power.. You're going to need enough PV and battery storage run your household overnight. If you need to charge your EV at night for the next day, add that to your storage requirements. Charging my Leaf at night depletes my backup system and I have to purchase power to finish charging. Adding enough more storage to compensate could cost $10K if I DIY it or $20K if commercially built.

Sooner or later the utilities will figure out to charge you transport fees for any power going in or out and usage fees for any power you consume in addition. You will be paid for excess power at long term market rates (wholesale) but will be charged a retail rate for power purchased. PV with local storage will be the only way to come close to breaking even and even then you'll still be buying power on occasion ( bad weather or excess usage).
 
johnlocke said:
If you power your home from 5 PM to 7 AM with your EV, how do you get to work and back home during the day? Using your employer's power to charge your EV every day? Seems tantamount to theft if you do it every day. Kind of like taking a couple of dozen pens home from work every day.

Consider a completely solar economy. No wind, no hydro, no nuclear.

Two choices, one expensive and one much cheaper.

Many people work during the day. If they charge at home at night, they will need to have or pay for stationary storage to charge, as you suggest. This is more expensive.

If they charge during the day, either at work if they are working or at home, if not, then less storage is needed. This is cheaper, in total.

Economics is different if there is enough wind, or hydro, or nuclear.

Cost of power in a completely solar economy is lowest during the day while the sun is shining, and higher when storage is needed. Likely will be more than one tiers of storage, so if the rate matches the cost, then a sunny day with all storage filled would be nearly free power, a cloudy day would be higher as would night time rates, and a cold night down to the last tier of storage would be the most expensive rate.

Does your employer bill you for charging at work, or is it an expected benefit of working? Don't know. Maybe it would depend on the day, if nearly free they don't bother.
 
johnlocke said:
SageBrush said:
johnlocke said:
It still remains to be seen what the reimbursement rates for excess solar power will be or whether Utilities will pay wholesale for power delivered to them and charge retail rates for power they supply to you.
I don't have any problem with wholesale rates, so long as they are spot market prices.
Consumers have to learn to self-consume PV to get the most value from its production. The missing piece is billing that lets consumers consume power distant from their production location.

In a word: Produce at home, charge your EV at work and heat water during the day. From 5pm - 7am power home from EV. The utility gets to bill for its wires, but the consumer obviates the need for energy storage.
If you power your home from 5 PM to 7 AM with your EV, how do you get to work and back home during the day? Using your employer's power to charge your EV every day?

You misunderstand my point: your PV production at home is net metered while you charge at work. In the evening at home, your EV powers your home..

In short, the PV energy is time shifted via the EV battery
 
Back
Top