Anyone have any experience in Solar DIY in New York State? I see bad things on the horizon....

[houseofancients]

As the Nazis used to say “Für euer sischerheit.”

leys stay far far away from nazi's here

 

[curiouscarbon]

let's stay far far away from nazi's here

indeed.

the translation is "for your safety"

which is Absolutely On Topic.

interference with solar systems that do not pose an immanent threat to life or limb, under the pretense of "for your safety", is unjust and unwarranted.

may we not see a solar treaty of versailles ever.

 

[Texican]

Well if you want freedom, Texas is still mostly free

My wife and I build our own house with our 4 hands. No permits or inspections required, except for septic
we have 2 grid tie systems, again no inspections
and a off grid system as well, no inspections
I did all electrical in the house and plumbing as well, no inspections required
we live in a semi rural area on 20 acres
if you are not blue, come on down. the sun is shining

on the grid tie systems, doing net metering 1 to 1 except for distribution charges 5.5 cents, with a $5/mo meter fee

 

[Mike 134]

I heard Texas is free and has one hell of a power grid. Free the charge whatever they choose.

 

[Old_Skewler]

The name of the controlling authority in NY for these matters is NYPSC (New York Public Service Commission).

I think "Public Service" is a bit ironic - I think a better name is NYPDC (New York Public Dis-service Commission)

I don't want to burst your hate bubble towards "the NYS evil machinery" but I feel like it needs a push back. If you were to read about PSC and Distributed Energy in NYS, you would learn that they have been putting together one of the best platforms for DG in the country. Says who? Ironically, an utility readiness assessment from Tennessee, by EPRI. Report in public domain. If you look for IREC reports on NYS interconnection you'll find out how the entire energy industry, including PV industry, has come to create these regulations and committees. This idea utilities are creating these rules against the common man, it is just not accurate. I understand it may look like that based on your very individual situation but...


This perspective you are suggesting, that utilities are simply trying to catch up to loss revenue from local PV production, it is just not very true. The entire industry has been scrambling in trying to solve one simply equation: "Demand x Supply" and the fact that they are well aware of production limitation and growing energy demand in NYS. This is simply math and they know it. And the PSC also knows it, hence the most aggressive interconnection mandate in the country. NYS understands that the utility of the future is DG. And they have stablished rules and requirements that utilities have to comply to. Request access to a Hosting Capacity Map for your utility company, find a pole that can accept DG power (they are legally required in NYS to give you access to this data), submit an interconnection application, pay the application fee and they will legally have to give you a CESIR report responding to your request to interconnect. This is how NYS is proposing to comply with the CMA and address the energy gap in the state.


I believe your experience from a DIY perspective may be real and accurately described, but it doesn't mean an evil plan is on the works on the background. What I suspect is happening here is you have different things colliding (more towns and/or counties enforcing permitting laws) and the fact that DIY PV integration & regulation, which understandably is peanuts to utilities and the state goals, has not been well thought and lacking improvements. I do not know, I don't work on the DIY PV space professionally. But the causation your propose does not match entirely with what's going on in the state.

 

[angrygoat]

CA has a proposal in the works right now that I think is set to add $30-50ish a mo fee for solar users (or maybe just net metering users). I've been on the solar fence for a while since solar hasn't made much economic sense for me when doing real math that includes cost of capital / opportunity cost. I was always worried they would get people to buy solar, then change the rules and raise prices on people. This is the california way - make financially responsible people pay for stuff so they can give hand outs to their recipients deemed most needy according to political groups. And they intend to do that with this new proposal too - it has an "equity" clause where it chooses who they will and will not raise prices on.

I want to be clear that I don't think people are entitled to lucrative net metering agreements. As more and more households use the grid mostly as an emergency battery, buying as little from the utility as possible, price per user needs to rise somewhat. But I also don't think they should mislead people the way they've been doing, where they trick people into spending tens of thousands on solar systems, thinking their solar math will pan out as planned for 10-20 years, only to have the rules change on them once they plunk down for the system.

CA has promised utopian never ending traffic filled with EVs within 10-15 years. But the CA grid in current form has no chance of charging such incredible numbers of EVs. My guess is they plan to decentralize the grid's power production by getting tons of solar systems installed so peak charging demand wont place much strain on the grid, as the power will be partially fulfilled from your neighborhood's residential solar, preventing demand on certain bottleneck power lines. I think they will also tweak grid connection terms for those w/ solar or an EV. I predict soon they will make electricity even more expensive unless you contribute N kwh of battery storage to the grid, either from your own batts, or from your EV. They will advertise it as a way to "make money", but they will just raise prices too. I will say that I think decentralized energy production has some nice virtues, such as being very resilient in the face of catastrophe. But Californians will pay out the wazoo for it. The prices for our partial green-sourced energy is already incredible, and the prices are rapidly climbing (I pay $0.30-0.55kwh).

Our grid may be unreliable. Our electricity may be very expensive. It may oddly cause lots of wildfires specifically in the past ~5 years. But at least we get to look down our noses at other states with our smug CA moral superiority, knowing that our power is more green and more "equitable" than theirs. Although, while most of us think our power is near fully renewable, we just aren't aware that we import tons of fossil fuel power from neighboring states. This importation scheme allows us to blame "them" for our summer time blackouts. Mismanagement at its finest.

 

[TheMadNucleus]

Old Skewler - my friend - I feel I have to push back a bit too - I'm afraid you have it wrong. The Utilities and the power authority's are not so foolish (and BTW I don't believe they are evil either - but like all big organizations, they are out to ensure power, momentum and survival - it's simplistic to think otherwise). Powerful organizations seek to hold power and seek more power. That's a well know "equation" with empirical support. The programs you refer to, are like any other organization's "Good for the order" programs - they are at least partially designed to generate a perception of their choice - corporations do this all the time - sometimes the process helps the public and sometimes it's at odds with the public's best interest.

Power Conditioning Systems, Microgrids, power storage innovations, and integration of variable types of power sources is powerful science and a great good - but much of its direction is greatly influenced by political pressures and control - something not so good. My position is not that the power companies are looking to recoup revenue - though that is certainly part of the plan - the current authorization by NYS to charge homeowners with Solar panels a "Lost revenue fee" is just ground work. This is like CVS charging you a fee for shopping at Walgreens - not as egalitarians as the myopic view you provide in your post. Why would they do that if they don't care about revenue. But the bigger issue is power.

You are correct about Solar systems being peanuts.... but that is now, not the future. What will it be like in 10 years or 20 years - when solar panels are orders of magnitude more efficient and less costly for homeowners? That's the question and the underlying reasoning behind my thread and posts (open debate). These organizations are not just siting around working feverishly on egalitarian pursuits, as you color them. They are considering the landscape of their "business" for many years into the future and considering what they will do, how they will adjust and most certainly what is in their best interest - not yours. There is strong evidence that solar systems will play an important part in that landscape - how society as whole, including the utilities and the government, will play a part in that - today we can't be sure but I am sure it involves increased regulation (some good, some bad) and increased costs to the homeowners. Even as it becomes more and more technically feasible to do so efficiently, homeowners in the future will not be able to generate their own power and keep that fully within their auspices - it is puerile and myopic to think it will - we all know better.

Distributed generation is a great approach - but it furthers the argument that the utilities are potentially more interested in perpetuating their revenue, existence and power. If that was not the case why aren't they assisting the public in the generation of their own power considering the technology is here now and getting better every day. DG v IG is the argument - if Individuals are empowered to control, own and generate their own power it could resolve many of the limitations of shipping electricity (with huge loses BTW) all over the state and the country. Also - if they were so interested in become more "green" why not support and empower the move to homeowners' energy independence (recall that about 85% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels)?

Lastly, you are correct - my "DIY perspective may be real and accurately described, but it doesn't mean an evil plan is on[in] the works on[in] the background" but it seems you are ignorant of the converse - your expressed views and ideas also don't conclusively mean there is not a plan (evil or otherwise) in the works in the background.

TMN

 

[justgary]

It may oddly cause lots of wildfires specifically in the past ~5 years.

Forgive my ignorance here, but I thought that a lot of those fires were due to people complaining when the power company tried to trim trees near the lines, so they didn't get trimmed. Around here, the power company presumes an easement and ruthlessly trims.

 

[Texican]

some places seem to be moving to a plan where they have access to your battery. CA and even TX are making plans.
TX did some tests with tesla owners sharing their batteries
I cant imagine why anyone would allow this

 

[SparkyJJO]

That would be a flat out NO for me.
It would be like someone siphoning the fuel out of my car because they decided they wanted it. No!

 

[Texican]

That would be a flat out NO for me.
It would be like someone siphoning the fuel out of my car because they decided they wanted it. No!

its their crack pipe dream...everyone gets an EV, charges it off peak and then at peak they drain part of your battery

redistribution at its best

 

[12VoltInstalls]

prepared to get a lawyer if someone tries to tell me I *have to* connect to the grid.

Will they disconnect you if you don’t pay the bill?! ??

I would think that a good strategy

 

[12VoltInstalls]

More importantly is why we arrived at a place where one can think one can earn money by generating electricity.

A bit myopic

100 years ago (metaphorically and literally) there were many private parties (individuals) and local municipalities owning and running hydro stations. Now most of them are throttled or gone due to regulatory pressures to some extent but mostly due to misplaced environmental regulations. At least here in New England.
EDIT: there is at least one- maybe two but I don’t know if a power company owns the second one- small hydro plant in operation within ~25 miles of me. And recently, last several years, Fed environmental oversight went to court and won, courtailing Morrisville Water&Light’s use of dams that have been in use for 75+ years. Stupidity.

Do you somehow think it’s morally wrong to invest one’s resources in a product and profit from it or something? Do you think it’s wrong to show up for your job with your degree in hand expecting a paycheck?

How we arrived at the place where people question personal choices or in individual’s choice of taking advantage of legal opportunities to generate some income is the dilemma for me.

How to pay for the grid? Six year deregulation plan and let the market decide…

 

[12VoltInstalls]

This is like CVS charging you a fee for shopping at Walgreens - not as egalitarians as the myopic view you provide in your post. Why would they do that if they don't care about revenue. But the bigger issue is power.

The grocery store that requires your signup (or tractor supply) to get the best pricing or automotive fuel credits so they can spy and rape your data- even “share it with partners”- normalizes that scenario. It’s not a big leap to see how the metaphorical cvs could punish you for hurting their profits…

 

[stienman]

Will they disconnect you if you don’t pay the bill?! ??

I would think that a good strategy

Until they put a lien on your house and sell it out from under you for nonpayment.

I haven't stepped in this specific part of the discussion because I don't want to dig into the governing authority rules and regulations, but each statement I've seen in here so far probably deserves a whole lot of asterisks with fine print explaining the details, exceptions, etc.

I'm ok with the following:
1. A certificate of occupancy is required to use a building as a dwelling, to sell it, and to live in it.
2. A certificate of occupancy requires an electrical connection to the grid - with exceptions, such as the grid not already available at the dwelling, and/or cost of initial connection is prohibitive, with the exception being reviewed and approved by the governing authority - not the power company.
3. A certificate of occupancy requires inspections after major changes/upgrades to a building's electrical system - regardless of power source
4. Where an electrical connection is required by the governing authority, the power company is allowed to collect a nominal fee to provide that connection, meter it, etc. I'd prefer there to be choice and competition in this, however if the single source utility is regulated by people I elect, and the cost is the same for all the voters in the area, then I accept that competition might not be available.
5. Where an electrical connection is active, the power company must accept any power correctly pushed into the grid from a dwelling. The power company may give you nothing, some small return, net metering, etc according to a contract - but they must be up front and give adequate notice of changes.

That's reasonable in developed areas.

I think the sticking point is the idea that energy you generate that you use on property might be metered and might result in you paying for that energy. I don't think that's reasonable at all, but I understand where the idea comes from, and why some will consider it a valid cost:

Many states pay for roads with fuel taxes. For decades there has been a direct correlation between fuel consumption and road wear and tear. This correlation has changed slowly as the government has mandated more fuel efficient cars, but not enough that states lost the ability to cover their road maintenance with fuel taxes.

Electric cars have changed that equation, and so more and more states are moving to a model where yearly registration costs more for electric vehicles, and often based on the odometer reading, which corresponds tightly with road usage. People are accepting of this, partly because the electric cars are using the roads, and partly because you can choose not to register a vehicle, and as long as you don't use public roads it's fine - so you can opt out of this tax/fee/cost when you aren't using the shared resource.

People are applying that same logic to solar. The power grid must be maintained by all, and to maintain a pretense of fairness, people are charged by how much they use from the grid. This means that a wealthy person living in a large mansion will be covering more of this shared cost simply because they use more electricity.

Solar decouples the house size and income of the occupants from this tax structure, and worse - the people who are wealthy will be the ones who can opt out in this way - leaving the grid to be covered by those who can't afford to take their dwelling off grid.

So the idea is to make sure everyone pays for the grid that benefits all, even if they aren't using it personally at their dwelling. They are certainly using it in other businesses, traffic control devices, entertainment venues, etc - and it's not power they're paying for, but reliability and peak generation capacity.

So even though the model isn't the same - their energy isn't traveling on the grid - the common good is what's being requested, particularly since they do benefit from it.

But if it's a valid way to get people to pay for public, common goods, then we should be pushing that onto other situations as well - if you travel by air, then you should be paying for roads you didn't use just to maintain them since they benefit you.

I personally don't think it's valid, and I expect people will push back in those jurisdictions where the attempt to pass it is being made.

But it's not a completely invalid perspective, and in areas where 80% of the population is off-grid, the remaining 20% will have terrible service and/or high costs - an interconnected, reliable, fully energized grid is no small thing to maintain, and it's only possible because everyone participates and spreads the costs.

The transition to more and more personal solar is going to be messy, and we're going to have to deal with the fallout one way or another.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

each statement I've seen in here so far probably deserves a whole lot of asterisks with fine print explaining the details, exceptions, etc.

Unfortunately true

 

[Old_Skewler]

some places seem to be moving to a plan where they have access to your battery. CA and even TX are making plans.
TX did some tests with tesla owners sharing their batteries
I cant imagine why anyone would allow this

You really can't imagine why would anyone allow (subscribe) this?

its their crack pipe dream...everyone gets an EV, charges it off peak and then at peak they drain part of your battery

redistribution at its best

One man's "redistribution nightmare" is another's "investment dream".

I highly suspect these programs in TX are voluntary just like in NY & CT and many other states and the only reason consumers of all scales participate in them is for the direct monetary payment. And the only reason the utilities, mandated by state, are paying for these programs is because their grid cannot reliably sustain the demand and it costs a lot more to build up capacity or to repair after blackouts.

Remove all of these demand and BESS programs, solar incentives and let's see how long the grid lasts as it is.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

The power grid must be maintained by all, and to maintain a pretense of fairness, people are charged by how much they use from the grid. This means that a wealthy person living in a large mansion will be covering more of this shared cost simply because they use more electricity.

Fair market strategy. But what if there were no solar incentives? Everyone can opt out or opt in at their own profit or peril?

They are certainly using it in other businesses, traffic control devices, entertainment venues, etc - and it's not power they're paying for, but reliability and peak generation capacity.

So people who don’t buy… say fertilizer; people who don’t buy fertilizer directly pay for it when they purchase a product that requires fertilizer. Same should be with electricity.
I do get the idea of a ‘connection fee’ but every electricity consumer should be charged that. Equally.

Remove all of these demand and BESS programs, solar incentives and let's see how long the grid lasts as it is.

That would be letting the free market decide and not creating a subsidy by a legislated decision.

 

[Old_Skewler]

That would be letting the free market decide and not creating a subsidy by a legislated decision.

Oh, so remove legislation and let the utilities decide what is best for.... let me guess, for them? So the solution to this entire gibberish about how utilities and government are out to destroy the common man is basically to remove the government side of the equation and trust the utilities? Very interesting idea.

Yes, because the utilities don't need oversight and they are interested in the common good and the best for the nation.

Legislation is simply looking at the full picture and saying: "Hey, at this pace demand could implode our grid and our own economy. Maybe it is a good idea to promote some diversity and leverage our grid risks. Maybe it is a good idea to pass some legislation to incentivize grid diversity and reduce the utility's power and while doing that creating modern jobs instead of relying on old technology.

The free market has been deciding and the portion of the private sector that can see the entire picture has been heavily investing in DG. Do you know what the lead time to get a Tesla Megapack delivered to you after you make a $1.2M deposit? About 2 years. Why? The new gold rush.

 

[zzrider]

How to pay for the grid? Six year deregulation plan and let the market decide…

^^ This

"Public utilities" are for all intents and purposes, monopolistic corporatist extensions of an oligarchal government. After seeing everything governments have been doing over the past couple years, it is dangerously naive to think governments and quasi-government institutions (ie public utilities) won't use their power to control behavior.

Power and control is a zero-sum game. The more you give to someone else, the less you have as an individual.