diy solar

diy solar

Net Metering under attack, again....

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
7,201
Location
Key Largo
reference 1, reference 2

Some states have already done away with net metering, or changed the rates to where you get next to nothing for the excess power you generate.

Now, the The New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) has filed petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to basically do away with net-metering across the United States, as a federal law it would supersede state law.

Net metering laws, adopted in 41 states, require utilities to purchase excess electricity from households with their own electricity generation source, the “customer side of the retail meter,” at the retail prices ratepayers pay for electricity.

NERA's argument is that only rich people have solar, and them not paying into the utility shifts the burden of supporting the utility to the poor people.

So, not only getting rid of net metering, but also to tax those off-grid.

What the argument misses is that the utility can't supply power to all off-grid locations and that those grid-connected do pay their fair share of the Utility's operational costs. The petition at it's best is to scare people away from solar and at it's worst a way to propagate the Utility's lifespan. Instead, of perpetuating the utility, the utility should be allowed to die and a tax should be established such that everyone can have solar installed.

Update: You can let the FERC know what you think, here's an example comment. Keep in mind that its a crime for any person knowingly and willingly to make to any Agency or Department of the United States any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. The NERA petition is Docket EL20-42-000.
 
Last edited:
I anticipate a big states rights battle if this takes place especially in California. Also one only has to look at Hawaii to see what high electrical rates and anti solar policies did. The number of battery installations increased. Long term that is a death spiral for utilities.

I do anticipate more fixed charges from my utility. My pack upgrade should enable me to consume more of my solar production. I can not disconnect from the grid but I can sure use less of it.
 
That's the beauty of a utility attacking it at the federal level, at one go they can eliminate net metering in all states.
 
That is so unfortunate.

It seems that in the future we will be forced to go off-grid 100%. Use the grid as a back up means of power.
 
I anticipate a big states rights battle if this takes place especially in California. Also one only has to look at Hawaii to see what high electrical rates and anti solar policies did. The number of battery installations increased. Long term that is a death spiral for utilities.

I do anticipate more fixed charges from my utility. My pack upgrade should enable me to consume more of my solar production. I can not disconnect from the grid but I can sure use less of it.
The state's right battle will be an aftermath of the action. Typically, the legal beagles in this type action have analyzed jurisdictions to avoid/minimize the underlying issue fights that can derail the actual intent.
There is a lot at stake here. This is act of socialization - all things equal unless you are legacy rich....
 
I think they realize with battery prices falling it's finally getting realistic for average people to go 100% off grid.
Probably why they worded it such that if FERC accepts the argument, then even 100% off-grid folks will get taxed to subsidize local utilities.
 
Read several reports on this the other day. Weeks ago I was at the precipice trying to decide whether to invest in solar. At the time I didn't realize that a $1400 meter swap was required by my utility. Despite that I was ready to take the plunge. I then read several of these reports of the NERA lawsuit. That tipped me back to the NO GO mode. The uncertainty is too much for me, though in this political environment I am quite certain the utilities will win out in the end. Solar is the enemy until the corporations can corner the market.

I am going back to the drawing board and seeing if I can avoid all the regulatory mess and build an off-grid system with no connection to the grid while still maintaining a grid connection. Not exactly how that looks, but, necessity is the mother of invention!


Tim
 
I am going back to the drawing board and seeing if I can avoid all the regulatory mess and build an off-grid system with no connection to the grid while still maintaining a grid connection. Not exactly how that looks, but, necessity is the mother of invention!
There are some good examples here about how to do that. . I have had solar for years but the benefits continue to be eroded. Fortunately I am retired and consider this a hobby. With the cost of LFP storage being as low as it is I have invested in more storage with a goal of consuming more of my solar production.
 
So we work with the power guys all the time (electric) ... SOLAR is on a verge - especially with Battery technology (thx Elon - marry me) growing rapidly -- that these electric companies are actually past the point of being concerned about Solar and are now realizing that its causing a financial dent in their profit .. for the last few years it was easy for Electric companies to get behind all this "solar" stuff because it was soooo little it really honestly wasn't even a blimp on their financial ledger ... BUT now hundreds of millions of dollars a year are being taken out of the electric producers US-wide pockets and THAT is not good according to them and their shareholders (public) and now they will find a way to cause grid-tie solar panels on these homes not to work or be much less effective ..

2 easy ways -- they reduce the amount that they pay for "buy-back" (thats the easiest) (they simply make it less cost effective to have solar panels) OR they simply change the Hz inversion requirement to 61%. It would NOT affect anything at all in the home or commercial BUT it would cause all the on/in-grid solar systems to require new conversion equipment that the Electric company would have to sell to them at very high prices..

The first way would be the easiest for the public to swallow ... the second way would just stop home grid-tie systems in its track ...

If i owned a house would I go grid tie at this point in history -- NOPE ... Electric companies are going to come after those systems and politically they will win

Just my .02
 
How would they ever asses off-grid usage? I think they would quickly realize that what it would cost to enforce would be offset by whatever taxes they collect.
 
That's a shame TimC. And no, I don't think this is an act of "socialization". It is "ironic" capitalism, i.e. when it professes to want reduced regulatory burden, but of course not in cases like this where it simply wants the government to stifle or remove competition.

I'm a little radical - I've always been against electric utilities being corporations. They are not looking for the best outcomes in efficient power production for everyone, they want to protect the status quo, and to speculate only in areas that maximize shareholder value. These should not be the primary goals for the entity providing an essential service that everyone needs.
 
Don't let their smoke screen distract you. Follow the money. It's all about the greed. None of those people, power companies or politicians give 2 shakes about any of. Until they need our votes.
 
So we work with the power guys all the time .....
Good insight. I get that pushback from the guys in the field and even the ocassional administrative personnel.
...... they simply change the Hz inversion requirement to 61%. It would NOT affect anything at all in the home or commercial BUT it would cause all the on/in-grid solar systems to require new conversion equipment that the Electric company would have to sell to them at very high prices..
Are you talking about the frequency control requirements, where they can knock a grid tie inverter off line by increasing the grid frequency? I know my GT inverter would go off line but I think my hybrid inverter would then disconnect from the grid and fire up the GT inverter which is on that subpanel. It doesn't matter to me because as soon as I get my 28 kWhs of LFP batteries I am putting my hybrid inverter in grid zero self consumption mode and AC coupling my GT inverters. I will be offline for most of the day anyway.
That could be the beginning of a death spiral for the utilities.
 
A number of people have been writing to FERC to ask them to deny the petition. You can see them by going here: FERC GENERAL Search, set the start date back to march, and in the text search enter EL20-42. You can also let them know what you think about it too!

Here are some interesting snippets (when you submit these you are swearing they are true to the best of your knowledge), it looks like NERA is more the fossil fuel industry (sounds like @jafo nailed it) than public utilities:

Artem Treyger
... (NERA), a tax-exempt non-profit organization entirely funded by member dues with an average of $20,000.00 annual contribution. This petition appears to claim that net metering is unfair to lower- and middle-income ratepayers, while clearly being supported by interests outside of these groups...

Kat McGhee
(NERA) is well known to the House Committee on Science, Technology & Energy. NERA’s principle lobbyist, Marc Brown, has remained firm in his reluctance to identify any actual members from his organization. However, I can attest to the fact that his lobbying efforts align more with the fossil fuel

Go New Mexico!
The NMPRC believes the Petition seeks declarations that would: 1) improperly impose FERC jurisdiction on local distribution networks that are not within its legal purview since small distributed generation installations almost never send energy back through substations and on to transmission lines that cross state boundaries; 2) create red tape that makes new distributed residential and small commercial grid tied solar installations almost impossible; 3) eliminate a large number of renewable energy jobs in New Mexico; and 4) severely restrict consumer choice when considering energy options.

Robert Triest
No lobbying group has been more extreme in fighting consumer choice than NERA.

Joan Panek
Granting the NERA request will end net-metering as it now being practiced and will result in financial problems for individual citizens such as myself. I have made my energy needs decisions based on cost projections I gathered from many local sources. To change things at this point will be a hardship for me.

There are even companies fighting it:
ENGIE North America, Inc. ("ENGIE") respectfully moves to intervene in Docket No. EL20-42-000. ENGIE is an energy services company, retail electricity supplier and power generator that develops, owns and operates wind, solar and thermal generation facilities that participate in the wholesale electricity markets throughout the United States. Good cause exists to grant ENGIE's intervention. ENGIE has a direct and substantial interest in this proceeding that cannot be adequately represented by any other party. ENGIE's intervention is in the public interest.
 
Last edited:
I anticipate a big states rights battle if this takes place especially in California. Also one only has to look at Hawaii to see what high electrical rates and anti solar policies did. The number of battery installations increased. Long term that is a death spiral for utilities.

I do anticipate more fixed charges from my utility. My pack upgrade should enable me to consume more of my solar production. I can not disconnect from the grid but I can sure use less of it.
Same way they do with natural gas in the northern states. When I lived outside of Chicago I had a small house that was insulated extremely well. I insulated crazier than Will in his shed roof project. Was awesome that in almost 18 years I never had a heating bill above $200 in the winter months. During March-December the utility would charge me a "flat rate", even when I was not even using any gas at all. Plus the charged a "Delivery Charge" which was 2x's the amount of the gas.

I can totally see them doing that with solar.
 
Updated the OP with information on how to leave your own comments to FERC.
 
So now solar/off-grid is a bad idea? And the oil companies/monopolies want to stifle it so it doesn't kill their golden goose? Here's a interesting thought about powerful opponents...

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
- Winston Churchill
 
I can totally see them doing that with solar.
I can see at point where the death spiral of the electricity industry in various countries will get to the point where enough people do go off-grid causing the cost to maintain the network to fall on the people that can't, and everyone getting hit with a monthly charge even if the premises is not actually connected to the network in order to cover those costs and make access reasonably priced for those that have no means to go off-grid. That or the funding is done via government subsidy out of general revenue (aka taxes, levies etc).

Many places already do this for other essential services such as water but for my own location, Queensland Australia, this is already done. The Queensland government shovels a few hundred million AUD into the regional / remote electricity operation (Ergon, now merged with the metro operation Energex, both government operations) to keep rates comparable with those in the state's metro area, the south east corner including Brisbane.
 
Back
Top