CA Solar Net Metering, is this fair?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 11 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]269746[/snapback]</div>

Some form of net metering is fair, for sure. If you produce power and put it into the grid you should be compensated for it. The way Germany is doing it is, I think, insane. The net metering rates don't reflect market reality at all and are a huge cash cow for those who can get their hands on PV systems. That's why Germany is the world's leading PV market. The problem with that approach is that it's made PV MORE expensive and more scarce. In the long run it may work, but I think it probably creates some ill will. Somebody's gotta pay for those $054/kwh rates.

 

I'd have to have serious subsidies to lay out big bucks for solar panels, unless I changed to a night job and was using more electricity during the day.

I see those whole-house emergency generators at Home Depot, and think maybe the home capacitor business for solar people might be the next frontier...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 11 2006, 06:05 PM) [snapback]269746[/snapback]</div>

I can't get your link to open, but I'll answer your question anyway.

If I buy electricity from the grid, I'm paying money so that somebody can produce and deliver that electricity for me. If I'm a net generator of electricity, then others will pay me to use the electricity that I produce. In my situation, I'm also paying my utility a monthly minimum to act as my broker to deliver the energy that I produce to the others who are paying for it.

I'm not sure I follow how "others" are subsidizing my power. Others are *paying* for the power I'm making, just like they'd pay for the power made by less clean means. And even if it turns out that I AM being subsidized (certainly my system was) then I'm still happy. This is the kind of thing we're SUPPOSED to be subsidizing! I'm making clean energy that powers my home, my car and sometimes even my neighbor's home. If I weren't doing it myself, I'd be happy to pay somebody else to be doing it for me. In fact, before my system went in, that's exactly what I was doing by buying "green tickets" to help subsidize green power into my grid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 12 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]269980[/snapback]</div>

Say it actually costs PG&E $0.24 per Kwh to sell electricity for $0.54 (no idea of actual profit margin).

If solar users get paid $0.54 for every Kwh they produce, there's no profit at all on any matched-up PG&E-provided Kwh used, and a $0.30 'loss' on every extra Kwh generated and sold to PG&E.

In the Grand Scheme Of Business, anything done that produces a loss or even just no profit but continues anyway gets labeled a 'subsidy'. For it to continue, something else has to carry the weight...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jun 12 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]269995[/snapback]</div>

That's how it works in Germany. The $0.54/kwh is what's going on over there. In Cali it's a LOT less. Basically, PG&E is paying retail for the power. Naturally, they don't do this with the utility scale venders who they buy power from. They'd loss money because of their operating costs (which are substantial I'm sure). IMO, they should pay the same rate that they'd pay a larger vendor, not retail. Home generated solar would still do OK because the power generated is always going to be peak (the most expensive kind). It's beneficial to PG&E as well as the vendor.

The problem is that the subsidies are coming from the wrong place, which, I think, creates a wierd cost situation. The Fed should be doing the subsidies because they're the ones that hand out all of the subsidies to the fossil fuel industries. The way it's done now put the burden on the wrong people and causes these sorts of situations. What they should do is yank the coal subsidies and give them to the green power industry. Of course, we all know that that won't happen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 12 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]270014[/snapback]</div>

The more people providing the subsidy, the less the individual pain. Federal taxes would spread the pain thinner, but it's still there.

Before my father died, he wanted to try to collect on some of the welfare that he'd been subsidizing for years. I think he did manage to get a little of it...

 

OK, I gotcha. Now back to the second part of what I said...


I'm here subsidizing gasoline for everybody with my federal taxes. I've also been subsidizing SUVs and trucks that weigh over 6,000 pounds. I'm not too upset that solar is bing subsidized on a WAY smaller scale. I'll say it again: This is what SHOULD be subsidized. How that subsidy is applied remains to be ironed out better, perhaps.

 

Net metering of photovoltaic electricity tied to the grid does not work how many people think. A person (school, church, residence, business) spends money up front for a photovoltaic system and an inverter. Some people receive tax credits, but everyone benefits. Electricity pulled off the grid is charged retail. Electricity put into the grid receives a credit at the retail price ("net metering").

Some people sign up for "time of use" metering, where a higher rate ($0.30 per kWh vs. $0.11) is charged from noon to 6:00 p.m. (peak demand time). Since most people work noon to 6:00 p.m., any electricity put into the grid generates a credit at $0.30 per kWh. You cannot continue to tear up streets and lay larger and larger copper wire as electricity demand increases. With grid-tied photovoltaics, utilties can "squeeze" more energy out of existing infrastructure.

Photovoltaic electricity put into the grid is higher "quality" because it must go through a sine wave inverter (fewer large spikes or surges). Electricity pulled from the grid is "cleaned up" by going through an inverter to fewer spikes coming into a home or business that could damage electronic equipment.

While many may envision a utility "subsidizing" a customer, reality is the other way around. Customers who put electricity into the grid are charged $5.00 per month to be connected to the grid and only receive credit for electricity put into the grid. At the end of the year everything zeros out, so a customer never receives a check and any "surplus" does not carry over to the next year. It is customers who subsidize the utility.

Generally, photovoltaic and wind systems are sized to demand after an energy audit. Negawatts are more cost effective than kilowatts (which is why many utilities distribute compact florescent light bulbs that use 15 watts vs. a normal light bulb's 80 to 100 watts) so anything that promotes conservation or "avoided costs" is more cost effective and directly contributes to a utility's profit margin.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jun 12 2006, 02:59 PM) [snapback]270161[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for all this! Is very near to what I was trying to say, but MUCH better said.

 

I was contrasting this with the german approach where there is a profit to be made because of the feed-in tariff law. Yeah, considering that most people who get PV systems also readjust their energy consumption it seems like a win-win.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jun 12 2006, 04:59 PM) [snapback]270161[/snapback]</div>

Well, that depends.

For Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) customers, the minimum (every two months) charge is about $15.00, the price to be connected to the grid with or without solar panels (or other home generating system). If the customer uses about 121 kwh in those two months, the $15 min is met and the billing switches to a kwh rate, plus 60 cents for the meter connection to the grid. <_< If you use less than about 121 kwh, then the charge is $15.00.

Also, LADWP does NOT zero out at the end of the year. You can carry forward any "surplus" for as long as you own the house. Upon change of ownership, then the balance sheet gets zeroed out. End-of-year zeroning out is generally used by CEC (Calilfornia Energy Commission) utilities.

As in most areas, the local power company does provide a subsidy/rebate/buydown upon initial installation. For investor-owned utilities, like So Cal Edison, they work with CEC and follow those rebate rules. Local government-owned utilities, like LADWP and Burbank, have their own rebate program and rules.

And in all cases of Net metering, no money changes hands. You get credit, in the form of the meter spinning backward and taking off the kwh, when your production exceeds your local consumption. It's a little more complicated for those on TOU (Time Of Use) meters, like mentioned in this thread, but the concept is the same--no money changes hands.

 

I don't get the company line either.

"But according to Adelman, PG&E has fought solar power from the beginning. He said the cap was put in place to appease the utility."

So who you gonna believe....the G&E company?

If the meter is running backward, MY panels are providing energy to the G&E company. And if my end of the year bill is in the negative, that means I've provided more power than I've used....but I don't get paid for any excess I've provided. To me this is a major flaw. It's why people don't put in all of the photovoltaic they can, I.E. cover all of the roof space, but just as much as they use. To me...you'd want everyone producing as much as possible so the excess can cover those that don't have solar.

And it's why I haven't installed any PV. I have to pay up front and then hope I get some sort of tax credit, maybe. And that gets smaller every year while the cost of PV goes UP every year. And I don't get paid for any excess. So I don't see how PV people are being subsidized by rate payers. Just the opposite, really. The G&E companies are getting "free" power without having to pay for the grids. Not to mention that his supplemental power is during peak hours, when they charge the most. Or maybe the power companies don't want peak energy because then they can't have rolling blackouts and raise the rates again and again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 12 2006, 06:32 PM) [snapback]270197[/snapback]</div>

Because they are a monopoly and wish to remain so. You can't have rolling blackouts if there is plenty of supply. And if there's plenty of supply, how do you continue to raise your rates? They need to make sure there isn't any other supply out there that will threaten their control of the market.

 

Domestic PV tie-ins are subsidized in New Mexico. A kWh produced is paid 21 cents, while general residential cost is about 8 cents.

My take on this offer: 1)it is open to everybody that owns a home and can take out a loan or pay cash. It is cash flow neutral or positive.
2)The *real* cost of fossil fuel based electricity is more than 21 cents/kwh.