diy solar

diy solar

Electric Companies slowly taking back control

OK and still the grid is providing a service that reduces your cost of energy storage.

Not when I export. That is helping them.

They only provide a service when (and if) I import.
So I say the tax shouldn't be on export, and it shouldn't be on production.
It should be on how much (and when) I import.
If I only draw power on 5% of days, when sun is obscured, I understand that is utilizing production and distribution capacity, and paying normal cost per kWh wouldn't cover that.
This is why a "demand charge" or some other based on pattern of consumption not just total power consumed would be appropriate.

If we can adjust our time of consumption to off-peak, then we burden the grid and production less.
Under prior/current net metering rules, the utility signaled us by means of time-of-use rates, so we charged EV or ran pool pump when rates were low.
Just tell us what burdens the grid (by means of pricing structure) and we will adjust our usage to help the grid and everybody.
 
My strategy is not to disconnect but rather to use as little as possible by self consuming the power I produce. I doubt they can come after me for that.
I Understand, but you stated you were not connected to the grid, and they are going after those people.
 
When I export power, I don't hurt them none.
That is not how they view it. All their control systems are designed for one way control. Your power just flows to your neighbors and reduces the load at the sub station. What the power company is concerned about is when enough people are generating to reverse the flow through the substation their control systems will not work correctly. That was a problem in Hawaii.
 
That is not how they view it. All their control systems are designed for one way control. Your power just flows to your neighbors and reduces the load at the sub station. What the power company is concerned about is when enough people are generating to reverse the flow through the substation their control systems will not work correctly. That was a problem in Hawaii.

True, when there is too much.
Initial net metering allocation was small enough to not cause a problem. I am part of that group (2003), so I don't hurt them.
More recent programs and equipment requirements include UL-1471-SA, frequency-watts, volts-watts, communication for remote control.
It is up to them to define such things and roll out on a schedule so additional net metering doesn't hurt them either, rather helps.
 
That is not how they view it. All their control systems are designed for one way control. Your power just flows to your neighbors and reduces the load at the sub station. What the power company is concerned about is when enough people are generating to reverse the flow through the substation their control systems will not work correctly. That was a problem in Hawaii.
Jimmy Carter 40yrs ago started a solar program in America, they had that long to fix the problem. So much for the upkeep of the grid syste, they spent more money obstructing progress then helping it.
 
In fairness, PG&E used to be a power company, but the government decided to end that.

For instance,

"At the time, PG&E was preparing to divest its hydroelectric generation facilities and related properties in accordance with California Assembly Bill 1890, signed into law in 1996."



Our government is more interested in "competition" than service to consumers.
 
True, when there is too much.
Initial net metering allocation was small enough to not cause a problem. I am part of that group (2003), so I don't hurt them.
More recent programs and equipment requirements include UL-1471-SA, frequency-watts, volts-watts, communication for remote control.
It is up to them to define such things and roll out on a schedule so additional net metering doesn't hurt them either, rather helps.
California now has a requirement that all new home construction has to have solar, this will force electric utilities to fix a problem that they have known about for 40yrs
 
In fairness, PG&E used to be a power company, but the government decided to end that.

For instance,

"At the time, PG&E was preparing to divest its hydroelectric generation facilities and related properties in accordance with California Assembly Bill 1890, signed into law in 1996."



Our government is more interested in "competition" than service to consumers.
Competition creates increased service and choice, which is exactly what the governments job should be. Monopoly’s helps no one but the owners.
 
In fairness, PG&E used to be a power company, but the government decided to end that.
I remember in the 1990's SCE was lobbying for deregulation. As a result of that legislation SCE and PG&E sold off their steam generation but as far as I know they never sold off their hydro. I guess it depends on how you define power company. SCE told me they wanted to focus on distribution.
 
True as long as there is no compensation. If there is compensation your export costs the utility money and the utility does not want to pay retail.

Again, only if I import. Or if I am paid in cash.

Under present rules (fairly recent addition), I am paid $0.025/kWh for any net exports during annual true-up. That being average wholesale (for the date of my true-up.)
Note that PG&E voluntarily entered an agreement to pay $0.10/kWh for PV generate power (which of course is only delivered when the sun shines.)

Electrical demand on the grid at Noon, and even more so in the afternoon, is huge.
If not for our PV export, the utility would be buying fuel, or electricity generated with fuel.
PV export is offsetting fuel costs. Depending on what credits are given, that may deprive utility of profit for burning fuel to sell electricity, or it may save them money by providing power cheaper.

Assuming peak demand (A/C) coincides with peak PV production, PV may save utility (or independent generators) capital investment costs. Which is to say, deprive them of the opportunity to invest more in order to make more. PG&E is only allowed profit as a percentage of book value of assets. (Revenue of course is a higher number.)

Net-metering and grid feed could be worked out more fairly. But to do so, PV producers would have to band together and negotiate as a block, with the threat of withdrawing their production (and maintaining their consumption) as a bargaining chip. PG&E would then have to contemplate what it is willing to pay for the power, rather than claiming it is worth less than zero because they once, on a balmy day, paid Arizona to take the last unneeded kWh remaining after all the kWh which were used.
 
lectrical demand on the grid at Noon, and even more so in the afternoon, is huge.
The duck curve would suggest that the demand increases late afternoon through the evening until about 9-10PM. Rooftop solar skews that because the net effect is a measured decrease in demand as rooftop generation trickles out to our neighbors, reducing load on the grid.
 
Good Article by Consumer Reports ledger companies in California pushing for grid solar grid


This is one reason why you should care, they can and will come for you

i appreciate that, why it worries me this stuff is coming up... but thankfully it is still " legal " to go off grid here, just" frowned upon "

their tactic is make it difficult too, so less people do..
 
Again, only if I import. Or if I am paid in cash.

Under present rules (fairly recent addition), I am paid $0.025/kWh for any net exports during annual true-up. That being average wholesale (for the date of my true-up.)
Note that PG&E voluntarily entered an agreement to pay $0.10/kWh for PV generate power (which of course is only delivered when the sun shines.)

Electrical demand on the grid at Noon, and even more so in the afternoon, is huge.
If not for our PV export, the utility would be buying fuel, or electricity generated with fuel.
PV export is offsetting fuel costs. Depending on what credits are given, that may deprive utility of profit for burning fuel to sell electricity, or it may save them money by providing power cheaper.

Assuming peak demand (A/C) coincides with peak PV production, PV may save utility (or independent generators) capital investment costs. Which is to say, deprive them of the opportunity to invest more in order to make more. PG&E is only allowed profit as a percentage of book value of assets. (Revenue of course is a higher number.)

Net-metering and grid feed could be worked out more fairly. But to do so, PV producers would have to band together and negotiate as a block, with the threat of withdrawing their production (and maintaining their consumption) as a bargaining chip. PG&E would then have to contemplate what it is willing to pay for the power, rather than claiming it is worth less than zero because they once, on a balmy day, paid Arizona to take the last unneeded kWh remaining after all the kWh which were used.
PG&E could buy for less except they are forced to give you retail credit.

If your business was forced to buy and sell a product at the same price(no profit).... how far do you accommodate this until you complain to the regulators?

PG&E is not organized as a non-profit.
 
Your personal anecdotal experience is no doubt poor and I've also no doubt there are other problems - it's common in regional/rural Australia as it's a difficult challenge given the terrain our networks have to cover for the population. But their global performance may also be pretty OK. Frustratingly, both can be correct.

I agree the current arrangements are far from perfect, but complaining on a forum does little. That said, venting is OK. Understanding how it works and working on ways to constructively engage for positive change, and at the least work out how to do the best for yourself and for your local community is next.
why I decided to go off grid in the first place, got sick of the brownouts / blackouts during " peak " times and when inclement weather would shut it down for days and paying a premium for the privilege ... hell a car would hit a poll and shut down large sections of the town, from hours to days... when I first set it up, time and again I would have several leads going to neighbours houses so they could do basic stuff, stopped do that when one tried to run several big things at once ( abused it) .. and this was in a " major " town .. was funny in a way when the whole street was in darkness and our place was lit up like a Christmas tree, aircons running etc... ended up helping a few more appreciative neighbours do the same but at a smaller scale... honestly one of the most satisfying feelings is being self sufficient... problem is, too many people do it, they will start " loosing " to much money, then the scare campaigns will start more aggressively/ more actively, then things like the cali woman above will start happening here... these greedy big bis don't like loosing their trough...
 
As one of your fellow diy Solar enthusiasts and as an engineer for a power utility let me share my thoughts .First if your home is connected to the grid , the utility must be able to supply the rating of your service whether you have solar / batteries or not .

All of the traditional generation/ transmission lines power transformers distribution system and distribution transformers must be in place and ready for your loads . This infrastructure also includes all of the personnel to keep it going .

With roof top solar on your home the utility cannot reduce any of this cost or infrastructure. The utility should not pay the same costs to buy back rooftop solar because currently it is not as dependable as the generation in place . And they cannot depend on it . How many of us Solar enthusiasts can depend on it without a backup source . For some of us the backup source is the grid , for others it’s a home generator . I hope someday we get there but as for me I’m not going to be pulling my meter until I have something in place that is dependable.
You are in a unique position and I’d appreciate your perspective on a question,

I have a 100A service and consume roughly 18kWh/day, so average of 750W and peak of 24kWh/day (1kW).

With my solar system and battery, I no longer need that 100A service. I’d be perfectly happy with a 5A (1.2kW) or at most a 10A (2.4kW) service from the grid.

This would allow me to use the grid as a low-power generator to keep my batteries charged during extended periods of poor production (lousy weather).

So I’m your view, should I be forced to pay the same monthly grid benefits charge as my neighbor pays for 100A service even though I only really 1/10th of that?

I don’t have any disagreement with you on wholesale pricing of power - NEM was a privilege, not a right.

But powerful hybrid inverters and large home batteries means that the grid only needs to supply average power for those customers, not peak power. And that should result in savings for those customers that reduce their ‘standby’ demands on the grid compared to those customers truly need their full rated service available on standby (and a grid maintained to serve that full service rating).

Your informed perspective appreciated.
 
Everybody is.

My cord is essentially cut. I’m using ~1.3kWh/day on cloudy/overnights from grid and have excess in the sun. By the end of March I’ll be using zero grid again. Or I could use a 12V generator to sustain but a couple hundred feet of cord I owned already is cheaper.

I don’t know how big most of those battery plants are. A friend is an EE that is employed supporting those MW facilities however. Don’t be so skeptical:)

Under-reported here but true. Although it won’t happen to me hahaha! I have three non-grid means of supplemental electricity if required.

That is what escapes most people I talk to. It’s not all about them. But i also think it shouldn’t cost more for solar homeowners than if they were 100% grid
I have no issue with the end of NEM in California. I have a bit of an issue with the terms of my 20-year grandfathering being reduced to 15-years but it’s not the end of the world and I’m sure the courts will determine whether that is legal or not.

The issue I have is the imposition of a monthly Grid Benefits Charge based on the size of your solar array even if you are not ever exporting to grid and only occasionally using the grid as a low-power generator to recharge batteries during extended periods of poor weather.

I don’t understand how imposition of specific charges that apply only to one class of customer can be considered legal.

Two neighbors consuming electricity from the grid, the one with solar always consuming less (both instantaneous / peak and average), and that lesser-consuming customer is going to be taxed so they end up paying more.

I’d have much less to complain about with a minimum bill applied to all customers, and/or a hefty penalty on the scale of the proposed Monthly Grid Benefits Charge imposed any month there is any export to grid.

At least that’s would mean equal rules being applied equally to all customers…
 
Governments have failed to protect the people which is how you end up with monopolies
Your statement just needs to say:
Government's failing to protect people.

Government's failing to protect people ending up with monopolies
is a non-sequitur.

For sure this can be an outcome of failing to protect and it might not be a good outcome, but I fail to see how the poles and wires of electrical transmission networks can be anything but a regional monopoly.

Consider the alternative: multiple sets of electrical poles and wires running down the street owned and operated by different companies so you can choose which particular set of wires you connect to? Of course electrical poles and wires networks are going to be monopolies, at least to some level of regionalisation. It would be nonsensical and cost prohibitive to replicate that network.

Many forms of public infrastructure are by necessity going to be monopolies. How many water supply pipes are there servicing each home in any given town or suburb? How many gas pipes? How many sewer and wastewater outlets does any home have the option of connecting to? How many road networks connect to your driveway? In each case the network, at least at local/regional level, is a monopoly.

Monopolies per se are not necessarily bad, they are only bad when publicly accountable legislative oversight is lacking such that owners of monopolies and/or corrupt government representatives can get away with murder.
 
Back
Top